Predictors of mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a high mortality rate, especially in patients with severe illness. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the potential predictors of mortality in patients with COVID-19.Methods
PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and three electronic Chinese databases were searched from December 1, 2019 to April 29, 2020. Eligible studies reporting potential predictors of mortality in patients with COVID-19 were identified. Unadjusted prognostic effect estimates were pooled using the random-effects model if data from at least two studies were available. Adjusted prognostic effect estimates were presented by qualitative analysis.Results
Thirty-six observational studies were identified, of which 27 were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 106 potential risk factors were tested, and the following important predictors were associated with mortality: advanced age, male sex, current smoking status, preexisting comorbidities (especially chronic kidney, respiratory, and cardio-cerebrovascular diseases), symptoms of dyspnea, complications during hospitalization, corticosteroid therapy and a severe condition. Additionally, a series of abnormal laboratory biomarkers of hematologic parameters, hepatorenal function, inflammation, coagulation, and cardiovascular injury were also associated with fatal outcome.Conclusion
We identified predictors of mortality in patients with COVID-19. These findings could help healthcare providers take appropriate measures and improve clinical outcomes in such patients.
SUBMITTER: Shi C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8264491 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe incidence of acute complications and mortality associated with COVID-19 remains poorly characterized. The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to summarize the evidence on clinically relevant outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and medRxiv were searched up to April 20, 2020, for studies including hospitalized symptomatic adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The secondary outcomes included acute cardiac or kidney injury, shock, coagulopathy, and venous thromboembolism. The main analysis was based on data from peer-reviewed studies. Summary estimates and the corresponding 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were obtained through meta-analyses.ResultsA total of 44 peer-reviewed studies with 14,866 COVID-19 patients were included. In general, risk of bias was high. All-cause mortality was 10% overall (95% PI, 2 to 39%; 1687/14203 patients; 43 studies), 34% in patients admitted to intensive care units (95% PI, 8 to 76%; 659/2368 patients; 10 studies), 83% in patients requiring invasive ventilation (95% PI, 1 to 100%; 180/220 patients; 6 studies), and 75% in patients who developed ARDS (95% PI, 35 to 94%; 339/455 patients; 11 studies). On average, ARDS occurred in 14% of patients (95% PI, 2 to 59%; 999/6322 patients; 23 studies), acute cardiac injury in 15% (95% PI, 5 to 38%; 452/2389 patients; 10 studies), venous thromboembolism in 15% (95% PI, 0 to 100%; patients; 3 studies), acute kidney injury in 6% (95% PI, 1 to 41%; 318/4682 patients; 15 studies), coagulopathy in 6% (95% PI, 1 to 39%; 223/3370 patients; 9 studies), and shock in 3% (95% PI, 0 to 61%; 203/4309 patients; 13 studies).ConclusionsMortality was very high in critically ill patients based on very low-quality evidence due to striking heterogeneity and risk of bias. The incidence of clinically relevant outcomes was substantial, although reported by only one third of the studies suggesting considerable underreporting.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration ID for this study is CRD42020177243 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=177243 ).
| S-EPMC7330272 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveSchizophrenia has been associated with patients' poor quality of life, disability, and hospitalization. As of today, evidence that highlights the association between schizophrenia and coronavirus disease (Covid-19) outcomes remains unclear. This study sought to analyze whether patients with pre-existing schizophrenia are at higher risk for Covid-19 mortality.MethodsUsing specific keywords, we comprehensively searched PubMed, Scopus, OVID, and Cochrane Library sources until November 15th, 2021. All published studies on schizophrenia and Covid-19 were collected. We used Review Manager 5.4 and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 3 software to conduct statistical analysis.ResultsThere were 10 studies with 263,207 Covid-19 patients included in the analysis. Evaluation of the data gathered yielded an association between schizophrenia and increased mortality from Covid-19 (RR 2.22; 95%CI: 1.54-3.20, p < 0.00001, I2 = 82% random-effect model). The increased risk of developing mortality from Covid-19 in patients with schizophrenia was significantly influenced by older age (p = 0.0004) and smoking (p = 0.0048).ConclusionsThis study proposes that patients with pre-existing schizophrenia are at risk of developing higher Covid-19 mortality. Patients with schizophrenia need special attention and should be prioritized to receive the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.Registration detailsCRD42021293997.
| S-EPMC8813760 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis systematic review, with meta-analysis and meta-regression aims to evaluate the effect of colchicine administration on mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and factors affecting the association.MethodsA systematic literature search using the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases were performed from inception of databases up until 3 March 2021. We included studies that fulfill all of the following criteria: 1) observational studies or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that report COVID-19 patients, 2) reporting colchicine use, and 3) mortality within 30 days. There was no restriction on the age, inpatients or outpatients setting, and severity of diseases. The intervention was colchicine administration during treatment for COVID-19. The control was receiving placebo or standard of care. The outcome was mortality and the pooled effect estimate was reported as odds ratio (OR). Random-effects restricted maximum likelihood meta-regression was performed to evaluate factors affecting the pooled effect estimate.ResultsEight studies comprising of 5530 patients were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. There were three RCTs and five observational studies. Pooled analysis showed that colchicine was associated with lower mortality in patients with COVID-19 (OR 0.47 [0.31, 0.72], p = 0.001; I2: 30.9, p = 0.181). Meta-regression analysis showed that the association between colchicine and mortality was reduced by increasing age (OR 0.92 [0.85, 1.00], p = 0.05), but not gender (reference: male, p = 0.999), diabetes (p = 0.376), hypertension (p = 0.133), and CAD (p = 0.354).ConclusionThis meta-analysis indicates that colchicine may reduce mortality in patients with COVID-19. Meta-regression analysis showed that the benefit was reduced as age increases.ProsperoCRD42021240609.
| S-EPMC8075849 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hypercoagulability in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may aggravate disease severity during hospitalization but the reported survival benefits from anticoagulation (AC) vary among studies. We performed a literature research to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) of in-hospital mortality and major bleeding comparing among intermediate-to-therapeutic dose AC, prophylactic dose AC, and no AC. Until October 22, 2020, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Database were searched for studies reporting AC utilization and mortality in COVID-19. Studies with suspected risk of bias were excluded before the synthesis of pooled ORs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. Of 37 identified studies (N = 19,510), 17 (N = 17,833) were aggregated in the meta-analysis. The overall mortality rate was 23.1% (95% CI 18.7-28.2). The pooled odds of mortality comparing anticoagulated to non-anticoagulated patients were similar, but lower in prophylactic dose AC group (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.73-0.95). Notably, intermediate-to-therapeutic dose AC increased mortality (OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.11-2.31) and major bleeding compared to prophylactic dose AC (OR 3.33; 95% CI 2.34-4.72). Our findings support the optimal efficacy and safety profiles of prophylactic dose AC in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC8060743 | 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
Project description:To determine, in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, the associations of pulmonary embolism (PE) with mortality and risk factors for PE as well as the therapeutic benefit of anticoagulant prophylaxis. Embase, PubMed, Cochrane controlled trials register, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to October 10, 2020. We included all published trials on PE in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 with eligibility of the trials assessed following the PRISMA guidelines. Sixteen clinical trials with 5826 patients were eligible. There were significant associations of PE with the male gender [odd ratio (OR) = 1.59, 95% CI 1.28-1.97], mechanical ventilation (OR = 3.71, 95% CI 2.57-5.36), intensive care unit admission (OR = 2.99, 95% CI 2.11-4.23), circulating D-dimer [mean difference (MD) = 5.04 µg/mL, 95% CI 3.67-6.42) and CRP (MD = 1.97 mg/dL, 95% CI 0.58- 3.35) concentrations without significant correlation between PE and mortality (OR = 1.31, 95% CI 0.82-2.08) as well as other parameters or comorbidities. After omitting one trial with strict patient selection criteria for anticoagulant prophylaxis, significant prophylactic benefit was noted (OR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.1-0.91). Our findings identified the risk factors associated with PE in COVID-19 patients and supported the therapeutic benefit of anticoagulant prophylaxis against PE in this patient population.
| S-EPMC8346591 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coagulation activation has been reported in several cohorts of patients Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the true burden of systemic coagulopathy in COVID-19 remains unknown. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database to identify studies that reported the prevalence of systemic coagulopathy using established criteria in patients with COVID-19. The primary outcome was the prevalence of systemic coagulopathy (disseminated intravascular coagulation [DIC] and/or sepsis-induced coagulopathy [SIC]). Pooled prevalences and 95% confidence intervals [CIs] were calculated using random-effects model. A total of 5 studies including 1210 patients with confirmed COVID-19 were included. The pooled prevalence of systemic coagulopathy was 7.1% (95%CI: 3.2%,15.3%, I2 = 93%). The pooled prevalence of DIC (N = 721) and SIC (N = 639) were 4.3% (95%CI 1.7%, 10.4%, I2 = 84%) and 16.2% (95%CI: 9.3%, 26.8%, I2 = 74%), respectively. Only 2 studies reported the prevalence of elevated D-dimer levels with the pooled prevalence of 84.6% (95%CI: 52.0%,96.5%, I2 = 94%). Average D-dimer and fibrinogen levels were remarkably increased, while platelet counts, PT, and aPTT ratios were minimally affected in COVID-19. The estimated prevalence of systemic coagulopathy in patients with COVID-19 was low despite D-dimer elevation in most patients. Relatively low systemic coagulopathy in COVID-19 may contribute to the high incidence of thrombosis rather than bleeding in patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7812392 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesSeveral studies have reported prone positioning of nonintubated patients with coronavirus diseases 2019-related hypoxemic respiratory failure. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the impact of prone positioning on oxygenation and clinical outcomes.Design and settingWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the coronavirus diseases 2019 living systematic review from December 1, 2019, to November 9, 2020.Subjects and interventionStudies reporting prone positioning in hypoxemic, nonintubated adult patients with coronavirus diseases 2019 were included.Measurements and main resultsData on prone positioning location (ICU vs non-ICU), prone positioning dose (total minutes/d), frequency (sessions/d), respiratory supports during prone positioning, relative changes in oxygenation variables (peripheral oxygen saturation, Pao2, and ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2), respiratory rate pre and post prone positioning, intubation rate, and mortality were extracted. Twenty-five observational studies reporting prone positioning in 758 patients were included. There was substantial heterogeneity in prone positioning location, dose and frequency, and respiratory supports provided. Significant improvements were seen in ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2 (mean difference, 39; 95% CI, 25-54), Pao2 (mean difference, 20 mm Hg; 95% CI, 14-25), and peripheral oxygen saturation (mean difference, 4.74%; 95% CI, 3-6%). Respiratory rate decreased post prone positioning (mean difference, -3.2 breaths/min; 95% CI, -4.6 to -1.9). Intubation and mortality rates were 24% (95% CI, 17-32%) and 13% (95% CI, 6-19%), respectively. There was no difference in intubation rate in those receiving prone positioning within and outside ICU (32% [69/214] vs 33% [107/320]; p = 0.84). No major adverse events were recorded in small subset of studies that reported them.ConclusionsDespite the significant variability in frequency and duration of prone positioning and respiratory supports applied, prone positioning was associated with improvement in oxygenation variables without any reported serious adverse events. The results are limited by a lack of controls and adjustments for confounders. Whether this improvement in oxygenation results in meaningful patient-centered outcomes such as reduced intubation or mortality rates requires testing in well-designed randomized clinical trials.
| S-EPMC8439644 | 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:Objective: The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to summarize the current existing evidence on the outcome of critically ill patients with COVID-19 as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical interventions. Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane library, Web of Science, the China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data from their inception to May 15, 2021. The search strings consisted of various search terms related to the concepts of mortality of critically ill patients and clinical interventions. Study Selection: After eliminating duplicates, two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts first, and then the full texts of potentially relevant articles were reviewed to identify cohort studies and case series that focus on the mortality of critically ill patients and clinical interventions. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the mortality of critically ill patients with COVID-19. The secondary outcomes included all sorts of supportive care. Results: There were 27 cohort studies and six case series involving 42,219 participants that met our inclusion criteria. All-cause mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU) was 35% and mortality in hospital was 32% in critically ill patients with COVID-19 for the year 2020, with very high between-study heterogeneity (I 2 = 97%; p < 0.01). In a subgroup analysis, the mortality during ICU hospitalization in China was 39%, in Asia-except for China-it was 48%, in Europe it was 34%, in America it was 15%, and in the Middle East it was 39%. Non-surviving patients who had an older age [-8.10, 95% CI (-9.31 to -6.90)], a higher APACHE II score [-4.90, 95% CI (-6.54 to -3.27)], a higher SOFA score [-2.27, 95% CI (-2.95 to -1.59)], and a lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio [34.77, 95% CI (14.68 to 54.85)] than those who survived. Among clinical interventions, invasive mechanical ventilation [risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% CI (0.39-0.61)], kidney replacement therapy [RR 0.34, 95% CI (0.26-0.43)], and vasopressor [RR 0.54, 95% CI (0.34-0.88)] were used more in surviving patients. Conclusions: Mortality was high in critically ill patients with COVID-19 based on low-quality evidence and regional difference that existed. The early identification of critical characteristics and the use of support care help to indicate the outcome of critically ill patients.
| S-EPMC8342953 | biostudies-literature