Comparison of comorbidities among severe and non-severe COVID-19 patients in Asian versus non-Asian populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
This study aimed to evaluate the comorbidities among severe and non-severe COVID-19 patients in Asian versus non-Asian populations.Design
Systemic review and Meta-analysis.Methods
A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Scopus and the web of science Database up to 24 March 2021. Odds ratios were calculated using a random-effects model.Results
We identified 66 studies including 39 Asian and 27 non-Asian studies. This study demonstrated that the proportion of hypertension was significantly higher in severe group than in non-severe group for Asian (OR = 2.46) and non-Asian (OR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.37-1.86, I2 = 84%; p < .00001) patients. Similarly, the proportion of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease was significantly higher in severe group than in non-severe group for both Asian and non-Asian studies. We found no statistically significant difference between the severe versus non-severe group for cancer (OR = 1.26) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 1.32) among non-Asian patients.
SUBMITTER: Puri A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8661719 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMore severe cases of COVID- 19 are more likely to be hospitalized and around one-fifth, needing ICU admission. Understanding the common laboratory features of COVID-19 in more severe cases versus non-severe patients could be quite useful for clinicians and might help to predict the model of disease progression. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the laboratory test findings in severe vs. non-severe confirmed infected cases of COVID-19.MethodsElectronic databases were systematically searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from the beginning of 2019 to 3rd of March 2020. Heterogeneity across included studies was determined using Cochrane's Q test and the I2 statistic. We used the fixed or random-effect models to pool the weighted mean differences (WMDs) or standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).FindingsOut of a total of 3009 citations, 17 articles (22 studies, 21 from China and one study from Singapore) with 3396 ranging from 12 to1099 patients were included. Our meta-analyses showed a significant decrease in lymphocyte, monocyte, and eosinophil, hemoglobin, platelet, albumin, serum sodium, lymphocyte to C-reactive protein ratio (LCR), leukocyte to C-reactive protein ratio (LeCR), leukocyte to IL-6 ratio (LeIR), and an increase in the neutrophil, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), total bilirubin, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), creatinine (Cr), erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), Procalcitonin (PCT), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), fibrinogen, prothrombin time (PT), D-dimer, glucose level, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in the severe group compared with the non-severe group. No significant changes in white blood cells (WBC), Creatine Kinase (CK), troponin I, myoglobin, IL-6 and K between the two groups were observed.InterpretationThis meta-analysis provides evidence for the differentiation of severe cases of COVID-19 based on laboratory test results at the time of ICU admission. Future well-methodologically designed studies from other populations are strongly recommended.
| S-EPMC7396942 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Whether nedaplatin and cisplatin are equally effective for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains uncertain. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of trials to compare nedaplatin-based chemotherapy with cisplatin-based chemotherapy. We conducted a literature search to identify trials that had investigated the substitution of nedaplatin for cisplatin in the treatment of advanced NSCLC. Fourteen randomized controlled trials were included. We found equivalent overall response, overall survival, and survival probability (0.5-year, 1-year). Considering the toxicity profiles, nausea and vomiting were common in the cisplatin group (OR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.20-0.40, P < 0.001), whereas severe thrombocytopenia was common in the nedaplatin group (OR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.18-2.40, P = 0.005). A subgroup analysis of grades 1-4 nephrotoxicity showed that cisplatin-based chemotherapy resulted in more renal toxicity (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.24-0.68, P = 0.001). No significant heterogeneity and publication bias were observed. Cumulative analysis found a stable time-dependent trend. Consistent results stratified by age, regimen, and country were observed. Cisplatin-based chemotherapy was associated with non-inferior antitumor efficacy compared with nedaplatin-based therapy. Therefore, the toxicity profile might play an important role in choosing between cisplatin-based or nedaplatin-based regimens.
| S-EPMC4440205 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveThere is limited information on the severity of COVID-19 infection in children with comorbidities. We investigated the effects of pediatric comorbidities on COVID-19 severity by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Medline databases were searched for publications on pediatric COVID-19 infections published January 1st to October 5th, 2020. Articles describing at least one child with and without comorbidities, COVID-19 infection, and reported outcomes were included.Results42 studies containing 275,661 children without comorbidities and 9,353 children with comorbidities were included. Severe COVID-19 was present in 5.1% of children with comorbidities, and in 0.2% without comorbidities. Random-effects analysis revealed a higher risk of severe COVID-19 among children with comorbidities than for healthy children; relative risk ratio 1.79 (95% CI 1.27 - 2.51; I2 = 94%). Children with underlying conditions also had a higher risk of COVID-19-associated mortality; relative risk ratio 2.81 (95% CI 1.31 - 6.02; I2 = 82%). Children with obesity had a relative risk ratio of 2.87 (95% CI 1.16 - 7.07; I2 = 36%).ConclusionsChildren with comorbidities have a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and associated mortality than children without underlying disease. Additional studies are required to further evaluate this relationship.
| S-EPMC7679116 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Endovascular methods have been increasingly applied in treating cervicocranial artery dissection (CCAD). Anti-thrombotic therapy, which is used in non-interventional care of CCAD patients, has differential effects in East Asian patients. Therefore, we aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of endovascular versus non-interventional therapy for CCAD in East Asians and non-East Asians. A search was performed for studies comparing endovascular and non-interventional approaches to CCAD patients. Rates of recovery, disability, and mortality were used to assess these approaches in East Asian and non-East Asian patients. Subgroup analyses were conducted for CCAD patients with ruptured dissections. Eleven East Asian studies and five non-East Asian studies were included. The subgroup analyses for CCAD patients with ruptured dissections on mortality (East Asian odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval [CI]]: 0.24 [0.08-0.71], P = 0.01; I(2) = 34%) and good recovery (East Asian OR [95% CI]: 3.79 [1.14-12.60], P = 0.03; I(2) = 54%) revealed that endovascular therapy is significantly superior to non-interventional therapy for East Asians. No differences in treatment effect upon mortality, disability, or good recovery outcomes were found for the CCAD populations-at-large nor for non-East Asian CCAD patients with ruptured dissections. Endovascular therapy appears to be superior to non-interventional therapy for East Asian CCAD patients with ruptured dissections.
| S-EPMC4438427 | biostudies-other
Project description:This study aimed to systematically assess COVID-19 patient background characteristics and pre-existing comorbidities associated with hospitalisation status. The meta-analysis included cross-sectional, cohort, and case-series studies with information on hospitalisation versus outpatient status for COVID-19 patients, with background characteristics and pre-existing comorbidities. A total of 1,002,006 patients from 40 studies were identified. Significantly higher odds of hospitalisation were observed in Black individuals (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.04-1.70), males (OR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.43-1.76), and persons with current/past smoking (OR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.34-1.88). Additionally, individuals with pre-existing comorbidities were more likely to be hospitalised [asthma (OR = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.02-1.45), COPD (OR = 3.68, 95% CI: 2.97-4.55), congestive heart failure (OR = 6.80, 95% CI: 4.97-9.31), coronary heart disease (OR = 4.40, 95% CI: 3.15-6.16), diabetes (OR = 3.90, 95% CI: 3.29-4.63), hypertension (OR = 3.89, 95% CI: 3.34-4.54), obesity (OR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.59-2.46) and renal chronic disease (OR = 5.84, 95% CI: 4.51-7.56)]. High heterogeneity and low publication bias among all factors were found. Age was not included due to the large variability in the estimates reported. In this systematic review/meta-analysis for patients with COVID-19, Black patients, males, persons who smoke, and those with pre-existing comorbidities were more likely to be hospitalised than their counterparts. Findings provide evidence of populations with higher odds of hospitalisation for COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8646852 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:COVID-19 has a varied clinical presentation. Elderly patients with comorbidities are more vulnerable to severe disease. This study identifies specific symptoms and comorbidities predicting severe COVID-19 and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. METHODS:A literature search identified studies indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Global Health before 5th March 2020. Two reviewers independently screened the literature and extracted data. Quality appraisal was performed using STROBE criteria. Random effects meta-analysis identified symptoms and comorbidities associated with severe COVID-19 or ICU admission. RESULTS:Seven studies (including 1813 COVID-19 patients) were included. ICU patients were older (62.4 years) than non-ICU (46 years), with a greater proportion of males. Dyspnoea was the only symptom predictive for severe disease (pOR 3.70, 95% CI 1.83-7.46) and ICU admission (pOR 6.55, 95% CI 4.28-10.0). COPD was the strongest predictive comorbidity for severe disease (pOR 6.42, 95% CI 2.44-16.9) and ICU admission (pOR 17.8, 95% CI 6.56-48.2), followed by cardiovascular disease and hypertension. CONCLUSIONS:Dyspnoea was the only symptom predictive for severe COVID-19 and ICU admission. Patients with COPD, cardiovascular disease and hypertension were at higher risk of severe illness and ICU admission.
| S-EPMC7246302 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe preferred agent of glucocorticoids in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19 is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19.MethodsBy searching the electronic literature database including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science, the clinical studies comparing methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in the treatment of severe COVID-19 were selected according to the inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria. Relevant data were extracted and literature quality was assessed. The primary outcome was short-term mortality. The secondary outcomes were the rates of ICU admission and mechanical ventilation, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, plasma levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, hospital stay, and the incidence of severe adverse events. Statistical pooling applied the fixed or random effects model and reported as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.1.0.ResultsTwelve clinical studies were eligible, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nine non-RCTs. A total of 2506 patients with COVID-19 were analyzed, of which 1242 (49.6%) received methylprednisolone and 1264 (50.4%) received dexamethasone treatment. In general, the heterogeneity across studies was significant, and the equivalent doses of methylprednisolone were higher than that of dexamethasone. Our meta-analysis showed that methylprednisolone treatment in severe COVID-19 patients was related to significantly reduced plasma ferritin and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio compared with dexamethasone, and that no significant difference in other clinical outcomes between the two groups was found. However, subgroup analyses of RCTs demonstrated that methylprednisolone treatment was associated with reduced short-term mortality, and decreased CRP level compared with dexamethasone. Moreover, subgroup analyses observed that severe COVID-19 patients treated with a moderate dose (2 mg/kg/day) of methylprednisolone were related to a better prognosis than those treated with dexamethasone.ConclusionsThis study showed that compared with dexamethasone, methylprednisolone could reduce the systemic inflammatory response in severe COVID-19, and its effect was equivalent to that of dexamethasone on other clinical outcomes. It should be noted that the equivalent dose of methylprednisolone used was higher. Based on the evidence of subgroup analyses of RCTs, methylprednisolone, preferably at a moderate dose, has an advantage over dexamethasone in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19.
| S-EPMC10162003 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10566449 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly contagious disease that appeared in China in December 2019 and spread rapidly around the world. Several patients with severe COVID-19 infection can develop a coagulopathy according to the ISTH criteria for disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (DIC) with fulminant activation of coagulation, resulting in widespread microvascular thrombosis and consumption of coagulation factors. We conducted a meta-analysis in order to explore differences in coagulopathy indices in patients with severe and non-severe COVID-19. An electronic search was performed within PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus electronic databases between December 2019 (first confirmed Covid-19 case) up to April 6th, 2020. The primary endpoint was the difference of D-dimer values between Non-Severe vs Severe disease and Survivors vs Non-Survivors. Furthermore, results on additional coagulation parameters (platelet count, prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time) were also analyzed. The primary analysis showed that mean d-dimer was significantly lower in COVID-19 patients with non-severe disease than in those with severe (SMD - 2.15 [- 2.73 to - 1.56], I2 98%, P < 0.0001). Similarly, we found a lower mean d-dimer in Survivors compared to Non-Survivors (SMD - 2.91 [- 3.87 to - 1.96], I2 98%, P < 0.0001). Additional analysis of platelet count showed higher levels of mean PLT in Non-Severe patients than those observed in the Severe group (SMD 0.77 [0.32 to 1.22], I2 96%, P < 0.001). Of note, a similar result was observed even when Survivors were compared to Non-Survivors (SMD 1.84 [1.16 to 2.53], I2 97%, P < 0.0001). Interestingly, shorter mean PT was found in both Non-Severe (SMD - 1.34 [- 2.06 to - 0.62], I2 98%, P < 0.0002) and Survivors groups (SMD - 1.61 [- 2.69 to - 0.54], I2 98%, P < 0.003) compared to Severe and Non-Survivor patients. In conclusion, the results of the present meta-analysis demonstrate that Severe COVID-19 infection is associated with higher D-dimer values, lower platelet count and prolonged PT. This data suggests a possible role of disseminated intravascular coagulation in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 disease complications.
| S-EPMC8128869 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aims/introductionTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (AGI) in Asian and non-Asian type 2 diabetes patients.Materials and methodsStudies were identified through a literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and other databases until December 2016. All statistical analyses were carried out in Review Manager statistical software by computing the weighted mean difference or odds ratio and 95% confidence interval.ResultsA total of 67 studies were included. AGI vs placebo: compared with the placebo, AGI treatment led to a greater decrease in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose and postprandial plasma glucose. No significant difference was observed in HbA1c change, fasting plasma glucose change, postprandial plasma glucose change or incidence of hypoglycemia between Asian and non-Asian patients. AGI vs active controls: in Asian patients, AGI treatment showed a lower reduction in HbA1c compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and sulfonylurea. In non-Asian patients, AGI treatment showed a lower reduction in HbA1c compared with thiazolidinedione. No significant difference was observed in HbA1c change and bodyweight change when comparing AGI with other oral hypoglycemic agents between Asian and non-Asian patients.ConclusionsThe effects of AGI treatment on glycemic control and bodyweight reduction were superior to the placebo without an increased incidence of hypoglycemia, but with an increased incidence of gastrointestinal discomforts. The hypoglycemic effects of AGI were comparable between Asian and non-Asian patients.
| S-EPMC5835463 | biostudies-literature