Dataset Information

Should patients with epilepsy be vaccinated against coronavirus disease 2019? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination coverage, willingness, and safety profiles in patients with epilepsy remain poorly understood. We aimed to summarize the available evidence of COVID-19 vaccination coverage, willingness, and safety profiles among patients with epilepsy.

Methods

We performed a literature search in the Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register database between 1 January 2020 and 30 April 2022. We included eligible studies that provided information on the COVID-19 vaccination coverage, willingness, and safety profiles among patients with epilepsy. We investigated the association between baseline characteristics of patients with epilepsy and unvaccination status using a fixed-effect model. We calculated the pooled overall willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19. We systematically reviewed the safety profiles after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with epilepsy.

Results

Ten eligible observational studies and two case reports yielded 2589 participants with epilepsy or their caregivers. Among 2145 participants that provided the information of vaccination status, 1508 (70.3%) patients with epilepsy were not administered COVID-19 vaccine, and 58% (95%CI 40-75%) of respondents were willing to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Seizure status (active versus inactive, OR 1.84 95%CI 1.41-2.39, I² = 0%) rather than seizure type (focal versus non-focal, OR 1.22 95%CI 0.94-1.58, I² = 0%) was associated with COVID-19 unvaccination status. Vaccines were well-tolerated; epilepsy-related problems such as increase in seizure frequency and status epilepticus after COVID-19 vaccination were uncommon.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest a low COVID-19 vaccination coverage and willingness in patients with epilepsy. Vaccination against COVID-19 appears to be well-tolerated and safe in patients with epilepsy, supporting a positive outlook toward vaccination in this population.

SUBMITTER: Lin K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9239978 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:Background: Emerging evidence shows that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is commonly complicated by coagulopathy, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) is considered to be a potential cause of unexplained death. Information on the incidence of VTE in COVID-19 patients, however, remains unclear. Method: English-language databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane), Chinese-language databases (CNKI, VIP, WANFANG), and preprint platforms were searched to identify studies with data of VTE occurrence in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Pooled incidence and relative risks (RRs) of VTE were estimated by a random-effects model. Variations were examined based on clinical manifestations of VTE (pulmonary embolism-PE and deep vein thrombosis-DVT), disease severity (severe patients and non-severe patients), and rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (≥60 and <60%). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to strengthen the robustness of results. Meta-regression was performed to explore the risk factors associated with VTE in COVID-19 patients. Results: A total of 17 studies involving 1,913 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were included. The pooled incidence of VTE was 25% (95% CI, 19-31%; I 2, 95.7%), with a significant difference between the incidence of PE (19%; 95% CI, 13-25%; I 2, 93.2%) and DVT (7%; 95% CI, 4-10%; I 2, 88.3%; P interaction < 0.001). Higher incidence was observed in severe COVID-19 patients (35%; 95 CI%, 25-44%; I 2, 92.4%) than that in non-severe patients (6%; 95 CI%, 3-10%; I 2, 62.2%; P interaction < 0.001). The high rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19 patients (≥60%) was associated with a lower incidence of VTE compared with the low pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis rate (<60%) (19 vs. 40%; P interaction = 0.052). Severe patients had a 3.76-fold increased risk of VTE compared with non-severe patients (RR, 4.76; 95% CI, 2.66-8.50; I 2, 47.0%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the primacy results. Conclusions: This meta-analysis revealed that the estimated VTE incidence was 25% in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Higher incidence of VTE was observed in COVID-19 patients with a severe condition or with a low rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Assessment of VTE risk is strongly recommended in COVID-19 patients, and effective measures of thromboprophylaxis should be taken in a timely manner for patients with high risk of VTE.

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.