Mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) in patients with schizophrenia: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
Schizophrenia 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.Methods
Using 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.Results
There 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).Conclusions
This 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 details
CRD42021293997.
SUBMITTER: Pardamean E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8813760 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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:Objective:Clinical and laboratory biomarkers to predict the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are essential in this pandemic situation of which resource allocation must be urgently prepared especially in the context of respiratory support readiness. Lymphocyte count has been a marker of interest since the first COVID-19 publication. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to investigate the association of lymphocyte count on admission and the severity of COVID-19. We would also like to analyze whether patient characteristics such as age and comorbidities affect the relationship between lymphocyte count and COVID-19. Methods:Comprehensive and systematic literature search was performed from PubMed, SCOPUS, EuropePMC, ProQuest, Cochrane Central Databases, and Google Scholar. Research articles in adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 with information on lymphocyte count and several outcomes of interest, including mortality, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), intensive care unit (ICU) care, and severe COVID-19, were included in the analysis. Inverse variance method was used to obtain mean differences and its standard deviations. Maentel-Haenszel formula was used to calculate dichotomous variables to obtain odds ratios (ORs) along with its 95% confidence intervals. Random-effect models were used for meta-analysis regardless of heterogeneity. Restricted-maximum likelihood random-effects meta-regression was performed for age, gender, cardiac comorbidity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, COPD, and smoking. Results:There were a total of 3099 patients from 24 studies. Meta-analysis showed that patients with poor outcome have a lower lymphocyte count (mean difference - 361.06 μL [- 439.18, - 282.95], p < 0.001; I 2 84%) compared to those with good outcome. Subgroup analysis showed lower lymphocyte count in patients who died (mean difference - 395.35 μL [- 165.64, - 625.07], p < 0.001; I 2 87%), experienced ARDS (mean difference - 377.56 μL [- 271.89, - 483.22], p < 0.001; I 2 0%), received ICU care (mean difference - 376.53 μL [- 682.84, - 70.22], p = 0.02; I 2 89%), and have severe COVID-19 (mean difference - 353.34 μL [- 250.94, - 455.73], p < 0.001; I 2 85%). Lymphopenia was associated with severe COVID-19 (OR 3.70 [2.44, 5.63], p < 0.001; I 2 40%). Meta-regression showed that the association between lymphocyte count and composite poor outcome was affected by age (p = 0.034). Conclusion:This meta-analysis showed that lymphopenia on admission was associated with poor outcome in patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7245646 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimDelirium is a common presenting symptom among older patients. Patients who presented with delirium may have a higher morbidity and mortality rate due to older age, other comorbidities, and atypical COVID-19 presentation. Currently, the evidence supporting delirium as one of the predictors of poor outcome of COVID-19 is still insufficient. This study aims to explore the potential association between delirium and poor outcomes from COVID-19.MethodsWe systematically searched the PubMed and Google Scholar databases using specific keywords related to our aims until January 30th, 2021. All articles published on COVID-19 and delirium were retrieved. The quality of the study was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) tool for observational studies and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools for case-series studies. Statistical analysis was done using Review Manager 5.4 software.ResultsOur meta-analysis of 20 studies showed that delirium symptoms on admission was associated with poor outcomes from COVID-19 [OR 2.36 (95% CI 1.80-3.09), p < 0.00001, I2 = 76%, random-effect models] and its subgroup which consist of severe COVID-19 [OR 3.89 (95% CI 1.72-8.75), p = 0.001, I2 = 91%, random-effect models], and mortality from COVID-19 [OR 1.90 (95% CI 1.55-2.33), p < 0.00001, I2 = 36%, random-effect models]. Meta-regression showed that the association was influenced by age (p = 0.005).ConclusionsOur study suggests delirium as an important marker to identify patients at higher risk for developing poor COVID-19 outcomes. The physicians should add delirium as one of the common presenting symptoms of COVID-19 in older populations.
| S-EPMC8376475 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly emerging infectious disease that has caused a global pandemic. The presenting symptoms are mainly respiratory symptom, yet studies have reported nervous system involvement in the disease. A systematic review and meta-analysis of these studies are required to understanding the neurologic characteristic of the disease and help physicians with early diagnosis and management. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the neurologic characteristics in patients with COVID-19. Evidence Review: Authors conducted a literature search through PubMed from January 1st, 2020 to April 8th, 2020. Furthermore, the authors added additional sources by reviewing related references. Studies presenting the neurologic features of COVID-19 patients in their data were included. Case reports and case series were also included in this review. The quality of the studies was assessed based on the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. Selected studies were included in the meta-analysis of proportion and the heterogeneity test. Finding: From 280 identified studies, 33 were eligible, with 7,559 participants included. Most of the included studies were from China (29 [88%]). Muscle injury or myalgia was the most common (19.2%, 95%CI 15.4-23.2%) neurologic symptom of COVID-19, followed by headache (10.9%, 95%CI 8.62-13.51%); dizziness (8.7%, 95%CI 5.02-13.43%); nausea with or without vomiting (4.6%, 95%CI 3.17-6.27%); concurrent cerebrovascular disease (4.4%, 95%CI 1.92-7.91%); and impaired consciousness (3.8%, 95%CI 0.16-12.04%). Underlying cerebrovascular disease was found in 8.5% (95%CI 4.5-13.5%) of the studies. Conclusion: Neurologic findings vary from non-specific to specific symptoms in COVID-19 patients. Some severe symptoms or diseases can present in the later stage of the disease. Physicians should be aware of the presence of neurologic signs and symptoms as a chief complaint of COVID-19, in order to improve management and prevent a worsening outcome of the patients.
| S-EPMC7273516 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly developed into a pandemic. Increased levels of ferritin due to cytokine storm and secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis were found in severe COVID-19 patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the role of ferritin in COVID-19.MethodsStudies investigating ferritin in COVID-19 were collected from PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI, SinoMed, and WANFANG. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the ferritin level between different patient groups: non-survivors versus survivors; more severe versus less severe; with comorbidity versus without comorbidity; ICU versus non-ICU; with mechanical ventilation versus without mechanical ventilation.ResultsA total of 52 records involving 10 614 COVID-19-confirmed patients between December 25, 2019, and June 1, 2020, were included in this meta-analysis, and 18 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. The ferritin level was significantly increased in severe patients compared with the level in non-severe patients [WMD 397.77 (95% CI 306.51-489.02), P < .001]. Non-survivors had a significantly higher ferritin level compared with the one in survivors [WMD 677.17 (95% CI 391.01-963.33), P < .001]. Patients with one or more comorbidities including diabetes, thrombotic complication, and cancer had significantly higher levels of ferritin than those without (P < .01). Severe acute liver injury was significantly associated with high levels of ferritin, and its level was associated with intensive supportive care, including ICU transfer and mechanical ventilation.ConclusionsFerritin was associated with poor prognosis and could predict the worsening of COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC7595919 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To provide a comprehensive and systematic analysis of demographic characteristics, clinical symptoms, laboratory findings, and imaging features of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in pediatric patients. A meta-analysis was carried out to identify studies on COVID-19 from 25 December 2019 to 30 April 2020. A total of 48 studies with 5829 pediatric patients were included. Children of all ages were at risk for COVID-19. The main illness classification ranged as: 20% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14%-26%; I2 = 91.4%) asymptomatic, 33% (95% CI: 23%-43%; I2 = 95.6%) mild and 51% (95% CI: 42%-61%; I2 = 93.4%) moderate. The typical clinical manifestations were fever 51% (95% CI: 45%-57%; I2 = 78.9%) and cough 41% (95% CI: 35%-47%, I2 = 81.0%). The common laboratory findings were normal white blood cell 69% (95% CI: 64%-75%; I2 = 58.5%), lymphopenia 16% (95% CI: 11%-21%; I2 = 76.9%) and elevated creatine-kinase MB 37% (95% CI: 25%-48%; I2 = 59.0%). The frequent imaging features were normal images 41% (95% CI: 30%-52%; I2 = 93.4%) and ground-glass opacity 36% (95% CI: 25%-47%; I2 = 92.9%). Among children under 1 year old, critical cases account for 14% (95% CI: 13%-34%; I2 = 37.3%) that should be of concern. In addition, vomiting occurred in 33% (95% CI: 18%-67%; I2 = 0.0%) cases that may also need attention. Pediatric patients with COVID-19 may experience milder illness with atypical clinical manifestations and rare lymphopenia. High incidence of critical illness and vomiting symptoms reward attention in children under 1 year old.
| S-EPMC7436402 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOne of the drugs which is commonly used in diabetic patients is Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor. Currently, the association between DPP-4 inhibitor and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcome is not yet established. This study aims to analyze the potential association between DPP-4 inhibitor and the composite poor outcome of COVID-19.MethodsWe systematically searched the PubMed and Europe PMC database using specific keywords related to our aims until November 29th, 2020. All articles published on COVID-19 and DPP-4 inhibitor were retrieved. Statistical analysis was done using Review Manager 5.4 and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3 software.ResultsOur pooled analysis showed that DPP-4 inhibitor use was not associated with composite poor outcomes of COVID-19 [OR 1.09 (95% CI 0.93-1.28), p = 0.29, I 2 = 0%, random-effect modelling], and its subgroup which comprised of severe COVID-19 [OR 1.07 (95% CI 0.87-1.31), p = 0.54, I 2 = 0%, random-effect modelling], and mortality [OR 1.14 (95% CI 0.87-1.51), p = 0.35, I 2 = 8%, random-effect modelling]. Meta-regression showed that the association was not influenced by age (p = 0.663), hypertension (p = 0.454), and admission blood glucose (p = 0.310). Subgroup analysis showed that the association was weaker in East Asian populations (OR 1.02) compared to European populations (OR 1.11).ConclusionDPP-4 inhibitor in diabetic patients did not alter the outcomes from COVID-19. Our study suggest that the use of DPP-4 inhibitor in COVID-19 patients with diabetes may still be continued according to the patients' need.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40200-021-00777-4.
| S-EPMC8003892 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimWith the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continuing to impact healthcare systems around the world, healthcare providers are attempting to balance resources devoted to COVID-19 patients while minimizing excess mortality overall (both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients). To this end, we conducted a systematic review (SR) to describe the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on all-cause excess mortality (COVID-19 and non-COVID-19) during the pandemic timeframe compared to non-pandemic times.MethodsWe searched EMBASE, Cochrane Database of SRs, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), from inception (1948) to December 31, 2020. We used a two-stage review process to screen/extract data. We assessed risk of bias using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). We used Critical Appraisal and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.ResultsOf 11,581 citations, 194 studies met eligibility. Of these studies, 31 had mortality comparisons (n = 433,196,345 participants). Compared to pre-pandemic times, during the COVID-19 pandemic, our meta-analysis demonstrated that COVID-19 mortality had an increased risk difference (RD) of 0.06% (95% CI: 0.06-0.06% p < 0.00001). All-cause mortality also increased [relative risk (RR): 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38-1.70, p < 0.00001] alongside non-COVID-19 mortality (RR: 1.18, 1.07-1.30, p < 0.00001). There was "very low" certainty of evidence through GRADE assessment for all outcomes studied, demonstrating the evidence as uncertain.InterpretationThe COVID-19 pandemic may have caused significant increases in all-cause excess mortality, greater than those accounted for by increases due to COVID-19 mortality alone, although the evidence is uncertain.Systematic review registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails], identifier [CRD42020201256].
| S-EPMC9800609 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are at high risk of fatal outcomes. This meta-analysis quantifies the prevalence of mortality among (1) diabetic and (2) non-diabetic, and (3) the prevalence of DM, in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.MethodsPublished studies were retrieved from four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and medRxiv) and appraised critically utilizing the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's tool. Meta-analyses were performed using the random-effects model. The measures of heterogeneity were ascertained by I- squared (I 2 ) and Chi-squared (Chi 2 ) tests statistics. Predictors of heterogeneity were quantified using meta-regression models.ResultsOf the reviewed 475 publications, 22 studies (chiefly case series (59.09 %)), sourcing data of 45,775 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, were deemed eligible. The weighted prevalence of mortality in hospitlized COVID-19 patients with DM (20.0 %, 95 % CI: 15.0-26.0; I 2 , 96.8 %) was 82 % (1.82-time) higher than that in non-DM patients (11.0 %, 95 % CI: 5.0-16.0; I 2 , 99.3 %). The prevalence of mortality among DM patients was highest in Europe (28.0 %; 95 % CI: 14.0-44.0) followed by the United States (20.0 %, 95 % CI: 11.0-32.0) and Asia (17.0 %, 95 % CI: 8.0-28.0). Sample size and severity of the COVID-19 were associated (p < 0.05) with variability in the prevalence of mortality. The weighted prevalence of DM among hospitalized COVID-19 patients was 20 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 15-25, I 2 , 99.3 %). Overall, the quality of the studies was fair.ConclusionsHospitalized COVID-19 patients were appreciably burdened with a high prevalence of DM. DM contributed to the increased risk of mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to non-DM patients, particularly among critically ill patients. Registration: PROSPERO (registration no. CRD42020196589).Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40200-021-00779-2.
| S-EPMC8012080 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo better inform clinical practice, we summarized the findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antivirals for COVID-19.MethodsWe systematically searched for literature up to September 2020, and included English-language publications of RCTs among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We conducted network meta-analysis combining results of both the direct and indirect comparisons of interventions. The efficacy outcomes were clinical progression, all-cause mortality, and viral clearance, and safety outcomes were diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. We generated treatment rankings (best to worst) and summarized rank probabilities using rankogram.ResultsWe included 15 RCTs (14,418 patients) from 7,237 retrieved citations. There was no evidence for efficacy of the assessed antivirals compared with placebo/no treatment or with another antiviral for all efficacy outcomes. Lopinavir (400 mg)/ritonavir (100 mg) significantly increased diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting compared with placebo/no treatment and other antivirals, and was ranked worst for these outcomes, while triazavirin (250 mg), baloxavir marboxil (80 mg), and remdesivir (100 mg - 10 days) ranked best, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThe available evidence does not support the use of any antiviral drugs for COVID-19. Cautious interpretations of the findings are, however, advised considering the paucity of the evidence. More RCTs are needed for a stronger evidence base.
| S-EPMC8477589 | biostudies-literature