Insulin Treatment May Increase Adverse Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19 and Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background and objective
Recently, insulin treatment has been found to be associated with increased mortality and other adverse outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and diabetes, but the results remain unclear and controversial, therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis.Methods
Four databases, namely, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, were used to identify all studies concerning insulin treatment and the adverse effects of COVID-19, including mortality, incidence of severe/critical complications, in-hospital admission and hospitalization time. To assess publication bias, funnel plots, Begg's tests and Egger's tests were used. The odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to access the effect of insulin therapy on mortality, severe/critical complications and in-hospital admission. The association between insulin treatment and hospitalization time was calculated by the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs.Results
Eighteen articles, involving a total of 12277 patients with COVID-19 and diabetes were included. Insulin treatment was significantly associated with an increased risk of mortality (OR=2.10; 95% CI, 1.51-2.93) and incidence of severe/critical COVID-19 complications (OR=2.56; 95% CI, 1.18-5.55). Moreover, insulin therapy may increase in-hospital admission in patients with COVID-19 and diabetes (OR=1.31; 95% CI, 1.06-1.61). However, there was no significant difference in the hospitalization time according to insulin treatment (SMD=0.21 95% CI, -0.02-0.45).Conclusions
Insulin treatment may increase mortality and severe/critical complications in patients with COVID-19 and diabetes, but more large-scale studies are needed to confirm and explore the exact mechanism.
SUBMITTER: Yang Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8339900 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the association between gestational diabetes mellitus and adverse outcomes of pregnancy after adjustment for at least minimal confounding factors.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesWeb of Science, PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from 1 January 1990 to 1 November 2021.Review methodsCohort studies and control arms of trials reporting complications of pregnancy in women with gestational diabetes mellitus were eligible for inclusion. Based on the use of insulin, studies were divided into three subgroups: no insulin use (patients never used insulin during the course of the disease), insulin use (different proportions of patients were treated with insulin), and insulin use not reported. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the status of the country (developed or developing), quality of the study, diagnostic criteria, and screening method. Meta-regression models were applied based on the proportion of patients who had received insulin.Results156 studies with 7 506 061 pregnancies were included, and 50 (32.1%) showed a low or medium risk of bias. In studies with no insulin use, when adjusted for confounders, women with gestational diabetes mellitus had increased odds of caesarean section (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.32), preterm delivery (1.51, 1.26 to 1.80), low one minute Apgar score (1.43, 1.01 to 2.03), macrosomia (1.70, 1.23 to 2.36), and infant born large for gestational age (1.57, 1.25 to 1.97). In studies with insulin use, when adjusted for confounders, the odds of having an infant large for gestational age (odds ratio 1.61, 1.09 to 2.37), or with respiratory distress syndrome (1.57, 1.19 to 2.08) or neonatal jaundice (1.28, 1.02 to 1.62), or requiring admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (2.29, 1.59 to 3.31), were higher in women with gestational diabetes mellitus than in those without diabetes. No clear evidence was found for differences in the odds of instrumental delivery, shoulder dystocia, postpartum haemorrhage, stillbirth, neonatal death, low five minute Apgar score, low birth weight, and small for gestational age between women with and without gestational diabetes mellitus after adjusting for confounders. Country status, adjustment for body mass index, and screening methods significantly contributed to heterogeneity between studies for several adverse outcomes of pregnancy.ConclusionsWhen adjusted for confounders, gestational diabetes mellitus was significantly associated with pregnancy complications. The findings contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the adverse outcomes of pregnancy related to gestational diabetes mellitus. Future primary studies should routinely consider adjusting for a more complete set of prognostic factors.Review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021265837.
| S-EPMC9131781 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: Cardiac injury is detected in numerous patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been demonstrated to be closely related to poor outcomes. However, an optimal cardiac biomarker for predicting COVID-19 prognosis has not been identified. Methods: The PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched for published articles between December 1, 2019 and September 8, 2021. Eligible studies that examined the anomalies of different cardiac biomarkers in patients with COVID-19 were included. The prevalence and odds ratios (ORs) were extracted. Summary estimates and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were obtained through meta-analyses. Results: A total of 63 studies, with 64,319 patients with COVID-19, were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The prevalence of elevated cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and myoglobin (Mb) in the general population with COVID-19 was 22.9 (19-27%) and 13.5% (10.6-16.4%), respectively. However, the presence of elevated Mb was more common than elevated cTnI in patients with severe COVID-19 [37.7 (23.3-52.1%) vs.30.7% (24.7-37.1%)]. Moreover, compared with cTnI, the elevation of Mb also demonstrated tendency of higher correlation with case-severity rate (Mb, r = 13.9 vs. cTnI, r = 3.93) and case-fatality rate (Mb, r = 15.42 vs. cTnI, r = 3.04). Notably, elevated Mb level was also associated with higher odds of severe illness [Mb, OR = 13.75 (10.2-18.54) vs. cTnI, OR = 7.06 (3.94-12.65)] and mortality [Mb, OR = 13.49 (9.3-19.58) vs. cTnI, OR = 7.75 (4.4-13.66)] than cTnI. Conclusions: Patients with COVID-19 and elevated Mb levels are at significantly higher risk of severe disease and mortality. Elevation of Mb may serve as a marker for predicting COVID-19-related adverse outcomes. Prospero Registration Number: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020175133, CRD42020175133.
| S-EPMC8636904 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe low COVID-19 vaccine uptake rate among pregnant women is mainly due to safety concerns about COVID-19 vaccines due to limited safety evidence. Our goal was to evaluate the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy with up-to-date evidence.MethodsA comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov was performed on April 5th, 2022, and updated on May 25th, 2022. Studies evaluating the association of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes were included. Two reviewers independently performed the risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed to pool outcome data.ResultsForty-three observational studies were included. COVID-19 vaccination [96,384 (73.9%) BNT162b2, 30,889 (23.7%) mRNA-1273, and 3,172 (2.4%) other types] during pregnancy [23,721 (18.3%) in the first trimester, 52,778 (40.5%) in the second trimester, and 53,886 (41.2%) in the third trimester].was associated with reduced risks of stillbirth or neonatal death (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92). Sensitivity analysis restricted to studies in participants without COVID-19 showed that the pooled effect was not robust. COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with congenital anomalies (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.63-1.08), preterm birth (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.06), NICU admission or hospitalization (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84-1.04), an Apgar score at 5 min <7 (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86-1.01), low birth weight (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.88-1.14), miscarriage (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.88-1.11), cesarean delivery (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.96-1.19), or postpartum hemorrhage (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.81-1.01).ConclusionsCOVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with any of the adverse neonatal or maternal outcomes studied. Interpretation of study findings is limited by the types and timing of vaccination. The vaccinations in our study received during pregnancy were primarily mRNA vaccines administered in the second and third trimester. Future RCTs and meta-analysis are warranted to evaluate the efficacy and long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccines.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022322525, identifier: PROSPERO, CRD42022322525.
| S-EPMC9922836 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionStatins may reduce a cytokine storm, which has been hypothesized as a possible mechanism of severe COVID-19 pneumonia. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to report on adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients by statin usage.MethodsLiteratures were searched from January 2019 to December 2020 to identify studies that reported the association between statin usage and adverse outcomes, including mortality, ICU admissions, and mechanical ventilation. Studies were meta-analyzed for mortality by the subgroups of ICU status and statin usage before and after COVID-19 hospitalization. Studies reporting an odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) were analyzed separately.ResultsThirteen cohorts, reporting on 110,078 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Individuals who used statins before their COVID-19 hospitalization showed a similar risk of mortality, compared to those who did not use statins (HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.50, 1.28; OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.38, 1.03). Patients who were administered statins after their COVID-19 diagnosis were at a lower risk of mortality (HR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.61; OR 0.57, 95% CI: 0.43, 0.75). The use of statins did not reduce the mortality of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU (OR 0.65; 95% CI: 0.26, 1.64). Among non-ICU patients, statin users were at a lower risk of mortality relative to non-statin users (HR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.62; OR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.88).ConclusionPatients administered statins after COVID-19 diagnosis or non-ICU admitted patients were at lower risk of mortality relative to non-statin users.
| S-EPMC8224908 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveDiabetes mellitus (DM) is a major risk factor for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) for reasons that are unclear.Research design and methodsWe leveraged the International Study of Inflammation in COVID-19 (ISIC), a multicenter observational study of 2,044 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, to characterize the impact of DM on in-hospital outcomes and assess the contribution of inflammation and hyperglycemia to the risk attributed to DM. We measured biomarkers of inflammation collected at hospital admission and collected glucose levels and insulin data throughout hospitalization. The primary outcome was the composite of in-hospital death, need for mechanical ventilation, and need for renal replacement therapy.ResultsAmong participants (mean age 60 years, 58.2% males), those with DM (n = 686, 33.5%) had a significantly higher cumulative incidence of the primary outcome (37.8% vs. 28.6%) and higher levels of inflammatory biomarkers than those without DM. Among biomarkers, DM was only associated with higher soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) levels in multivariable analysis. Adjusting for suPAR levels abrogated the association between DM and the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio 1.23 [95% CI 0.78, 1.37]). In mediation analysis, we estimated the proportion of the effect of DM on the primary outcome mediated by suPAR at 84.2%. Hyperglycemia and higher insulin doses were independent predictors of the primary outcome, with effect sizes unaffected by adjusting for suPAR levels.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that the association between DM and outcomes in COVID-19 is largely mediated by hyperinflammation as assessed by suPAR levels, while the impact of hyperglycemia is independent of inflammation.
| S-EPMC8918261 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines proved a strong clinical efficacy against symptomatic or moderate/severe COVID-19 and are considered the most promising approach for curbing the pandemic. However, some questions regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccines have been recently raised. Among adverse events to vaccines and despite a lack of signal during phase III clinical trials, an increase in blood pressure (BP) after COVID-19 vaccination has been reported as a potential adverse reaction. We systematically analyze this topic and undertook a meta-analysis of available data to estimate the proportion of patients with abnormal BP or raise in BP after vaccination. Six studies entered the final analysis. Overall, studies accrued 357,387 subjects with 13,444 events of abnormal or increased BP. After exclusion of outlier studies, the pooled estimated proportion of abnormal/increased BP after vaccination was 3.20% (95% CI: 1.62-6.21). Proportions of cases of stage III hypertension or hypertensive urgencies and emergencies was 0.6% (95% CI: 0.1% to 5.1%). In conclusion, abnormal BP is not rare after COVID-19 vaccination, but the basic mechanisms of this phenomenon are still unclear and require further research.
| S-EPMC9147472 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To explore and summarize the association between treatment with tocilizumab and clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis (10 RCTs including 3378 patients in the tocilizumab group and 3142 patients in the control group). We systematically searched PubMed and MedRxiv for all RCTs as of June 1, 2021, to assess the benefits and harms of tocilizumab to treat patients with COVID-19. All analyses were carried out using RevMan version 5.4.1. There were nine RCTs published in peer-reviewed journals and one RCTs published as a preprint. The summary RR for all-cause mortality with tocilizumab was 0.89 (95% CI= 0.82-0.96, P= 0.003). There was no significant between-trial heterogeneity (I2= 28%, P= 0.19). However, all peer-reviewed RCTs showed no significant associations between treatment with tocilizumab and reductions in all-cause mortality. We notably found that tocilizumab significantly reduced the rate of intubation or death in patients with COVID-19 with 3 RCTs. Across the 8 RCTs, the summary RR for discharge with tocilizumab was 1.10 (95% CI= 1.03-1.16, P< 0.00001). There was no significant association of tocilizumab with harm on other patient-relevant clinical outcomes, including increasing secondary infection risk, patients of adverse events, or patients of serious adverse events. Tocilizumab significantly increased the rate of hospital discharges in COVID-19 patients. Still, it did not decrease all-cause mortality or increase the risk of secondary infections, patients of adverse events, or patients for serious adverse events. Evidence that tocilizumab affects clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 requires further proof.
| S-EPMC8833131 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere are concerns that the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may increase the risk of adverse outcomes among patients with coronavirus COVID-19. This study aimed to synthesize the evidence on associations between the use of NSAIDs and adverse outcomes.MethodsA systematic search of WHO COVID-19 Database, Medline, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Database for all articles published from January 1, 2020, to November 7, 2021, as well as a supplementary search of Google Scholar. We included all comparative studies that enrolled patients who took NSAIDs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data extraction and quality assessment of methodology of included studies were completed by two reviewers independently. We conducted a meta-analysis on the main adverse outcomes, as well as selected subgroup analyses stratified by the type of NSAID and population (both positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or not).FindingsForty comparative studies evaluating 4,867,795 adult cases were identified. Twenty-eight (70%) of the included studies enrolled patients positive to SARS-CoV-2 tests. The use of NSAIDs did not reduce mortality outcomes among people with COVID-19 (number of studies [N] = 29, odds ratio [OR] = 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75 to 1.14, I2 = 89%). Results suggested that the use of NSAIDs was not significantly associated with higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with or without COVID-19 (N = 10, OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.07, I2 = 78%; N = 8, aOR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.09, I2 = 26%), or an increased probability of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (N = 12, OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.75, I2 = 82% ; N = 4, aOR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.22, I2 = 60%), requiring mechanical ventilation (N = 11, OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.54, I2 = 63%; N = 5, aOR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.24, I2 = 66%), or administration of supplemental oxygen (N = 5, OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.24, I2 = 63%; N = 2, aOR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.12, I2 = 0%). The subgroup analysis revealed that, compared with patients not using any NSAIDs, the use of ibuprofen (N = 5, OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.50 to 2.39; N = 4, aOR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.16) and COX-2 inhibitor (N = 4, OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.11; N = 2, aOR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.18) were not associated with an increased risk of death.InterpretationData suggests that NSAIDs such as ibuprofen, aspirin and COX-2 inhibitor, can be used safely among patients positive to SARS-CoV-2. However, for some of the analyses the number of studies were limited and the quality of evidence was overall low, therefore more research is needed to corroborate these findings.FundingThere was no funding source for this study.
| S-EPMC8989274 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Emerging evidence suggests that coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) may lead to a wide range of post-acute sequelae outcomes, including new onset of diabetes. The aim of this meta-analysis was to estimate the incidence of newly diagnosed diabetes in survivors of COVID-19. We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the World Health Organization Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease and clinical trial registries for studies reporting the association of COVID-19 and diabetes. Search dates were December 2019-October 16, 2022. Two investigators independently assessed studies for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We estimated the effect of COVID-19 on incident diabetes by random-effects meta-analyses using the generic inverse variance method. We identified 8 eligible studies consisting of 4,270,747 COVID-19 patients and 43,203,759 controls. Median age was 43 years (interquartile range, IQR 35-49), and 50% were female. COVID-19 was associated with a 66% higher risk of incident diabetes (risk ratio, 1.66; 95% CI 1.38; 2.00). The risk was not modified by age, sex, or study quality. The median risk of bias assessment was 7. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, COVID-19 was associated with higher risk for developing new onset diabetes among survivors. Active monitoring of glucose dysregulation after recovery from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is warranted.
| S-EPMC9684130 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vitamin C is an essential nutrient that serves as an antioxidant and is known to reduce the inflammatory response associated with pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), but its clinical effects remain controversial. This study aimed to investigate the therapeutic effect of vitamin C administration on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nineteen studies were selected, of which 949 participants administered vitamin C were in the intervention group, and 1816 participants were in the control group. All-cause mortality, hospitalization duration, length of intensive care unit stay, and ventilation incidence in COVID-19 patients were analyzed. The intervention group tends to have a lower risk ratio (RR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.07; I2 = 58%; Q = 40.95; p < 0.01) in all-cause mortality than the control group. However, there were no significant differences in ventilation incidence, hospitalization duration, and length of ICU stay between the two groups. In the subgroup analysis for all-cause mortality, the risk ratio for RCT as study design, combination therapy, of vitamin C was lower than that of the combination therapy with other agents. A moderate dosage showed a lower RR than a higher dose. The results suggest that vitamin C may lower mortality in COVID-19 patients, but further large-scale studies are required to assess the role of vitamin C in the treatment of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9777834 | biostudies-literature