Improved COVID-19 Outcomes following Statin Therapy: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Although vaccine rollout for COVID-19 has been effective in some countries, there is still an urgent need to reduce disease transmission and severity. We recently carried out a meta-analysis and found that pre- and in-hospital use of statins may improve COVID-19 mortality outcomes. Here, we provide an updated meta-analysis in an attempt to validate these results and increase the statistical power of these potentially important findings.Methods
The meta-analysis investigated the effect of observational and randomized clinical studies on intensive care unit (ICU) admission, tracheal intubation, and death outcomes in COVID-19 cases involving statin treatment, by searching the scientific literature up to April 23, 2021. Statistical analysis and random effect modeling were performed to assess the combined effects of the updated and previous findings on the outcome measures. Findings. The updated literature search led to the identification of 23 additional studies on statin use in COVID-19 patients. Analysis of the combined studies (n = 47; 3,238,508 subjects) showed no significant effect of statin treatment on ICU admission and all-cause mortality but a significant reduction in tracheal intubation (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.54-0.99, p = 0.04, n = 10 studies). The further analysis showed that death outcomes were significantly reduced in the patients who received statins during hospitalization (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.50-0.58, p < 0.001, n = 7 studies), with no such effect of statin therapy before hospital admission (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.82-1.37, p = 0.670, n = 29 studies).Conclusion
Taken together, this updated meta-analysis extends and confirms the findings of our previous study, suggesting that in-hospital statin use leads to significant reduction of all-cause mortality in COVID-19 cases. Considering these results, statin therapy during hospitalization, while indicated, should be recommended.
SUBMITTER: Vahedian-Azimi A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8463212 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and aimsStatin therapy is administered to patients with high cardiovascular risk. These patients are also at risk for severe course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Statins exhibit not only cardioprotective but also immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory effects. This study performed a systematic review of published evidence regarding statin treatment and COVID-19 related mortality.MethodsA systematic PubMed/Embase search was performed from February 10, 2020 until March 05, 2021 for studies in COVID-19 patients that reported adjusted hazard or odds ratio for death in statin users versus non-users.Results22 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Meta-analysis of 10 studies (n = 41,807, weighted age 56 ± 8 years, men 51%, hypertension 34%, diabetes 21%, statin users 14%) that reported adjusted hazard ratios for mortality in statin users versus non-users showed pooled estimate at 0.65 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.53, 0.81). Meta-analysis of 6 studies that reported continuation of statin therapy during hospitalization (58-100% of patients) revealed a pooled hazard ratio of 0.54 (95% CI 0.47, 0.62). Meta-analysis of 12 studies (n = 72,881, weighted age 65 ± 2 years, men 54%, hypertension 66%, diabetes 43%, statin users 30%) that reported adjusted odds ratios for mortality showed pooled estimate at 0.65 (95% CI 0.55, 0.78). Multivariable meta-regression analysis did not reveal any significant association of hazard or odds ratios with anthropometric characteristics or comorbidities.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis of retrospective observational studies showed that statin therapy was associated with an about 35% decrease in the adjusted risk of mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC8233054 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesFatigue is a pervasive clinical symptom in coronaviruses and may continue beyond the acute phase, lasting for several months or years. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to incorporate the current evidence for postinfection fatigue among survivors of SARS-CoV-2 and investigate associated factors.MethodsEmbase, PsyINFO, Medline, CINAHL, CDSR, Open Grey, BioRxiv and MedRxiv were systematically searched from January 2019 to December 2021. Eligible records included all study designs in English. Outcomes were fatigue or vitality in adults with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 measured at >30 days post infection. Non-confirmed cases were excluded. JBI risk of bias was assessed by three reviewers. Random effects model was used for the pooled proportion with 95% CIs. A mixed effects meta-regression of 35 prospective articles calculated change in fatigue overtime. Subgroup analyses explored specific group characteristics of study methodology. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and I2 statistic. Egger's tests for publication bias.ResultsDatabase searches returned 14 262 records. Following deduplication and screening, 178 records were identified. 147 (n=48 466 participants) were included for the meta-analyses. Pooled prevalence was 41% (95% CI: 37% to 45%, k=147, I2=98%). Fatigue significantly reduced over time (-0.057, 95% CI: -107 to -0.008, k=35, I2=99.3%, p=0.05). A higher proportion of fatigue was found in studies using a valid scale (51%, 95% CI: 43% to 58%, k=36, I2=96.2%, p=0.004). No significant difference was found for fatigue by study design (p=0.272). Egger's test indicated publication bias for all analyses except valid scales. Quality assessments indicated 4% at low risk of bias, 78% at moderate risk and 18% at high risk. Frequently reported associations were female gender, age, physical functioning, breathlessness and psychological distress.ConclusionThis study revealed that a significant proportion of survivors experienced fatigue following SARS-CoV-2 and their fatigue reduced overtime. Non-modifiable factors and psychological morbidity may contribute to ongoing fatigue and impede recovery.Prospero registration numberCRD42020201247.
| S-EPMC10151247 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: Findings among studies evaluating the effect of statin use and OA development in a 2020 meta-analysis of data from 11 observational studies of statin use and osteoarthritis (OA) revealed controversial results. We aimed to determine the associations between statin use and OA-related outcomes in an updated meta-analysis. Methods: The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020163983). A systematic literature retrieval was performed in the online databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus, from inception to 1 June 2022, for clinical studies that compared the effects of statin users vs. nonusers on OA-related outcomes risks. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were performed to estimate the correlations between statin use and OA-related outcomes. Tendency analysis was also used to estimate dose-response effects. The risk of bias was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: We included 23 studies involving more than 6,000,000 participants. Statin use was associated with increased OA risk (OR 1.099 [95%CI 1.002-1.206, p = 0.045]). Higher statin doses had higher OA risk (simvastatin equivalent daily of >40 mg). OA and related surgery risks were significantly reduced in statin users using antihypertensive drugs (AHDs). No significant differences were seen in other outcomes. Conclusion: This meta-analysis inferred that statin use might be associated with increased OA development, especially at higher doses. The present study highlights the importance of recognizing potential OA risk in the population with long-term and/or high-dose statin use, especially in older populations. In addition, AHDs are associated with lower OA risk and fewer surgeries in hypertensive statin users. Due to limitations of heterogeneity and confounders, more rigorous studies are needed to define the correlations between statin use and OA-related outcomes.
| S-EPMC9729269 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies demonstrate a reduced risk of thrombosis and mortality with anticoagulant treatment in patients with COVID-19 than in those without anticoagulation treatment. However, an open question regarding the efficacy and safety of therapeutic anticoagulation (T-AC) versus a lower dose, prophylaxis anticoagulation (P-AC) in COVID-19 patients is still controversial.MethodsWe systematically reviewed currently available randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBs) from January 8, 2019, to January 8, 2022, and compared prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulant treatment in COVID-19 patients. The primary outcomes were risk of mortality, major bleeding, and the secondary outcomes included venous and arterial thromboembolism. Subgroup analysis was also performed between critically ill and non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 and between patients with higher and lower levels of D-dimer. Sensitivity analysis was performed to decrease the bias and the impact of population heterogeneity.ResultsWe identified 11 RCTs and 17 OBs fulfilling our inclusion criteria. In the RCTs analyses, there was no statistically significant difference in the relative risk of mortality between COVID-19 patients with T-AC treatment and those treated with P-AC (RR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.78-1.15, P = 0.60). Similar results were also found in the OBs analyses (RR 1.21, 95% CI, 0.98-1.49, P = 0.08). The pooling meta-analysis using a random-effects model combined with effect sizes showed that in the RCTs and OBs analyses, patients with COVID-19 who received T-AC treatment had a significantly higher relative risk of the major bleeding event than those with P-AC treatment in COVID-19 patients (RCTs: RR 1.76, 95% CI, 1.19-2.62, P = 0.005; OBs: RR 2.39, 95% CI, 1.56-3.68, P < 0.0001). Compared with P-AC treatment in COVID-19 patients, patients with T-AC treatment significantly reduced the incidence of venous thromboembolism (RR 0.51, 95% CI, 0.39-0.67, P<0.00001), but it is not associated with arterial thrombosis events (RR 0.97, 95% CI, 0.66-1.42, P = 0.87). The subgroup analysis of OBs shows that the mortality risk significantly reduces in critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with T-AC compared with those with P-AC treatment (RR 0.58, 95% CI, 0.39-0.86, P = 0.007), while the mortality risk significantly increases in non-critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with T-AC (RR 1.56, 95% CI, 1.34-1.80, P < 0.00001). In addition, T-AC treatment does not reduce the risk of mortality in COVID-19 patients with high d-dimer levels in RCTs. Finally, the overall sensitivity analysis after excluding two RCTs studies remains consistent with the previous results.ConclusionsIn our integrated analysis of included RCTs and OBs, there is no significant difference between the mortality of T-AC and P-AC treatment in unselected patients with COVID-19. T-AC treatment in COVID-19 patients significantly reduced the incidence of venous thromboembolism but showed a higher risk of bleeding than those with P-AC treatment. In addition, P-AC treatment was superior to T-AC treatment in non-critically ill COVID-19 patients, the evidence supporting the necessity for T-AC treatment in critically ill COVID-19 patients came only from OBs.Trial registrationProtocol registration: The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021293294).
| S-EPMC9395810 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is increasing evidence for oral lesions and manifestations of COVID-19. The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the types of oral manifestations of COVID-19 and their prevalence. PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were used to search for publications on oral manifestations in patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19. A total of 310 records were selected, and 74 were included. Oral lesions in COVID-19 were classified according to their etiologies, including iatrogenic lesions caused by intubation and opportunistic infections. Of the included studies, 35 reported oral lesions probably caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Meta-analysis of prevalence data on oral manifestations and aphthous lesions indicated high heterogeneity, while meta-analysis of xerostomia prevalence data revealed a pooled prevalence, with considerable heterogeneity. In conclusion, the meta-analysis yielded high heterogeneity between studies: oral lesions yielded a prevalence of 0.33 (95% CI 0.11-0.60), xerostomia lesions a prevalence of 0.44 (95% CI 0.36-0.52) and aphthous lesions 0.10 (95% CI 0.01-0.24). In addition, a gap in the evidence regarding the prevalence of oral lesions in COVID-19 was identified and the need for further observational studies focusing on this issue and on the causal relationships between oral lesions and COVID-19 was highlighted.
| S-EPMC8424005 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This review aimed to evaluate the impact of obesity on the onset, exacerbation, and mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); and compare the effects of different degrees of obesity. PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched to find articles published between December 1, 2019, and July 27, 2020. Only observational studies with specific obesity definition were included. Literature screening and data extraction were conducted simultaneously by two researchers. A random-effects model was used to merge the effect quantity. Sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and meta-regression analysis were used to deal with the heterogeneity among studies. Forty-one studies with 219,543 subjects and 115,635 COVID-19 patients were included. Subjects with obesity were more likely to have positive SARS-CoV-2 test results (OR = 1.50; 95% CI: 1.37-1.63, I2 = 69.2%); COVID-19 patients with obesity had a higher incidence of hospitalization (OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.33-1.78, I2 = 60.9%); hospitalized COVID-19 patients with obesity had a higher incidence of intensive care unit admission (OR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.24-1.77, I2 = 67.5%), invasive mechanical ventilation (OR = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.31-1.65, I2 = 18.8%), and in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.04-1.26, I2 = 74.4%). A higher degree of obesity also indicated a higher risk of almost all of the above events. The region may be one of the causes of heterogeneity. Obesity could promote the occurrence of the whole course of COVID-19. A higher degree of obesity may predict a higher risk. Further basic and clinical therapeutic research needs to be strengthened.
| S-EPMC7753795 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic and may adversely affect pregnancy outcomes. We estimated the adverse maternal and neonatal characteristics and outcomes among COVID-19 infected women and determined heterogeneity in the estimates and associated factors.Study designsPubMed search was performed of confirmed COVID-19 pregnant cases and related outcomes were ascertained prior to July 8, 2020, in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Studies reporting premature birth, low birth weight, COVID-19 infection in neonates, or mode of delivery status were included in the study. Two investigators independently performed searches, assessed quality of eligible studies as per the Cochrane handbook recommendations, extracted and reported data according to PRISMA guidelines. Pooled proportions of maternal and neonatal outcomes were estimated using meta-analyses for studies with varying sample sizes while a systematic review with descriptive data analysis was performed for case report studies. Maternal and neonatal outcomes included C-section, premature birth, low birth weight, adverse pregnancy events and COVID transmission in neonates.ResultsA total of 790 COVID-19 positive females and 548 neonates from 61 studies were analyzed. The rates of C-section, premature birth, low birth weight, and adverse pregnancy events were estimated as 72 %, 23 %, 7 %, and 27 % respectively. In the heterogeneity analysis, the rate of C-section was substantially higher in Chinese studies (91 %) compared to the US (40 %) or European (38 %) studies. The rates of preterm birth and adverse pregnancy events were also lowest in the US studies (12 %, 15 %) compared to Chinese (17 %, 21 %), and European studies (19 %, 19 %). In case reports, the rates of C-section, preterm birth, and low birth weight were estimated as 69 %, 56 %, and 35 %, respectively. Adverse pregnancy outcomes were associated with infection acquired at early gestational ages, more symptomatic presentation, myalgia symptom at presentation, and use of oxygen support therapy.ConclusionsAdverse pregnancy outcomes were prevalent in COVID-19 infected females and varied by location, type, and size of the studies. Regular screening and early detection of COVID-19 in pregnant women may provide more favorable outcomes.
| S-EPMC7373687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThromboembolic events are common complications of COVID-19. Clinical study results on safety and efficacy of anticoagulation in COVID-19 are controversial.Material and methodsThis report updates our systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing standard prophylactic anticoagulation and intermediate or therapeutic anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients. We searched eligible studies for the update up to 4 February 2022 by weekly monitoring of RCTs in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).ResultsFor this update we included five new trials; a total of 13 RCTs with 7364 patients. Certainty of evidence was very low to low. We are uncertain whether low-dose prophylactic anticoagulation is favoured over placebo or no anticoagulation in the outpatient- or post-discharge-setting. In hospitalized patients with moderate and severe COVID-19, intermediate-dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect on thrombotic events or death (RR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.86-1.24), but may increase severe bleeding non-significantly (RR 1.48, 95 % CI 0.53-4.15). Therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may decrease thrombotic events or deaths in hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 (RR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.38-1.07; fixed-effect model RR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.57-0.91), but may have little or no effect in patients with severe disease (RR 0.98, 95 % CI 0.86-1.12). With therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, the risk of major bleeding may increase regardless of COVID-19 severity (RR 1.78, 95 % CI 1.15-2.74).ConclusionsHospitalized, moderately ill COVID-19 patients may benefit from therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, while critically ill patients may not. Risk of major bleeding must be considered.
| S-EPMC9451936 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is associated with poor prognosis. Because the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted mortality and morbidity, both on an individual level and the health care system as a whole, our purpose was to determine rates of OHCA survival since the onset of the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the influence of COVID-19 on OHCA survival outcomes according to the PRISMA guidelines. We searched the literature using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials databases from inception to September 2021 and identified 1775 potentially relevant studies, of which thirty-one articles totaling 88,188 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods was 12.3% vs. 8.9%, respectively (OR = 1.40; 95%CI: 1.06-1.87; p < 0.001). Survival to hospital discharge in pre- vs. intra-COVID-19 periods was 11.5% vs. 8.2% (OR = 1.57; 95%CI: 1.37-1.79; p < 0.001). A similar dependency was observed in the case of survival to hospital discharge with the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) 1-2 (6.7% vs. 4.0%; OR = 1.71; 95%CI: 1.35-2.15; p < 0.001), as well as in the 30-day survival rate (9.2% vs. 6.4%; OR = 1.63; 95%CI: 1.13-2.36; p = 0.009). In conclusion, prognosis of OHCA is usually poor and even worse during COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8658174 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Owing to the high coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related morbidity and fatality rate among patients with cancer, the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines is of profound significance in this fragile population. Accumulating data suggested that oncologic patients, especially those with anticancer therapy have an impaired immune response to COVID-19 vaccination. However, the exact effect of anticancer treatments on postvaccination response has not been elucidated yet. We, therefore, conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of treatments on response to COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer. A total of 39 studies were finally included comprising 11 075 oncologic patients. Overall, we found the humoral response was significantly decreased in patients undergoing anticancer treatments (odds ratio [OR] = 2.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.04-3.18) compared with those without active treatment. The seroconversion rates were significantly lower in patients with chemotherapy (OR = 3.04, 95% CI: 2.28-4.05), targeted therapy (OR = 4.72, 95% CI: 3.18-7.01) and steroid usage (OR = 2.19, 95% CI: 1.57-3.07), while there was no significant association between immunotherapy or hormonal therapy and seroconversion after vaccination. Subgroup analyses showed therapies with anti-CD20 antibody (OR = 11.28, 95% CI: 6.40-19.90), B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor (OR = 5.76, 95% CI: 3.64-9.10), and Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (OR = 6.86, 95% CI: 4.23-11.15) were significantly correlated with the risk of negative humoral response to vaccination. In conclusion, our results demonstrated that specific oncologic therapies may significantly affect serological response to COVID-19 vaccines in patients with cancer. Thus, an adapted vaccination strategy taking the influence of active treatment into account is in need, and further research on the effect of the third dose of vaccine and the role of postvaccination cellular response in oncologic patients is also needed.
| S-EPMC9349696 | biostudies-literature