scholarly journals Smoking is associated with worse outcomes of COVID-19 particularly among younger adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Roengrudee Patanavanich ◽  
Stanton A. Glantz
Keyword(s):  
Disease Progression ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Smoking Behavior ◽  
Smoking Prevention ◽  
Upper Airways ◽  
Younger Adults ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
History Of

Abstract Background Smoking impairs lung immune function and damages upper airways, increasing risks of contracting and severity of infectious diseases. This paper quantifies the association between smoking and COVID-19 disease progression. Methods We searched PubMed and Embase for studies published from January 1–May 25, 2020. We included studies reporting smoking behavior of COVID-19 patients and progression of disease, including death. We used random effects meta-analysis, meta-regression and locally weighted regression and smoothing to examine relationships in the data. Results We identified 46 peer-reviewed papers with a total of 22,939 COVID-19 patients, 5421 (23.6%) experienced disease progression and 2914 (12.7%) with a history of smoking (current and former smokers). Among those with a history of smoking, 33.5% experienced disease progression, compared with 21.9% of non-smokers. The meta-analysis confirmed an association between ever smoking and COVID-19 progression (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.33–1.89, p = 0.001). Ever smoking was associated with increased risk of death from COVID-19 (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02–1.39, p = 0.003). We found no significant difference (p = 0.864) between the effects of ever smoking on COVID-19 disease progression between adjusted and unadjusted analyses, suggesting that smoking is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 disease progression. We also found the risk of having COVID-19 progression higher among younger adults (p = 0.001), with the effect most pronounced among younger adults under about 45 years old. Conclusions Smoking is an independent risk for having progression of COVID-19, including mortality. The effects seem to be higher among young people. Smoking prevention and cessation should remain a priority for the public, physicians, and public health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

scholarly journals Smoking is associated with worse outcomes of COVID-19 particularly among younger adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROENGRUDEE PATANAVANICH ◽  
STANTON A GLANTZ
Keyword(s):  
Disease Progression ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Smoking Behavior ◽  
Smoking Prevention ◽  
Immune Functions ◽  
Upper Airways ◽  
Younger Adults ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Smoking impairs lung immune functions and damages upper airways, increasing risks of contracting and severity of infectious diseases. Methods: We searched PubMed and Embase for studies published from January 1-May 25, 2020. We included studies reporting smoking behavior of COVID-19 patients and progression of disease, including death. We used a random effects meta-analysis and used meta-regression and lowess regressions to examine relationships in the data. Results: We identified 47 peer-reviewed papers with a total of 31,871 COVID-19 patients, 5,759 (18.1%) experienced disease progression and 5,734 (18.0%) with a history of smoking. Among smokers, 29.2% experienced disease progression, compared with 21.1% of non-smokers. The meta-analysis confirmed an association between smoking and COVID-19 progression (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.32-1.83, p=0.001). Smoking was associated with increased risk of death from COVID-19 (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.05-1.34, p=0.007). We found no significant difference (p=0.432) between the effects of smoking on COVID-19 disease progression between adjusted and unadjusted analyses, suggesting that smoking is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 disease progression. We also found the risk of having COVID-19 progression among younger adults (p=0.023), with the effect most pronounced among people under about 45 years old. Conclusions: Smoking is an independent risk for having severe progression of COVID-19, including mortality. The effects seem to be higher among young people. Smoking prevention and cessation should remain a priority for the public, physicians, and public health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

scholarly journals Do prostatectomy suitable for localized prostate cancer patient: evidence from meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaojin Luo ◽  
Meilian Yi ◽  
Qun Hu ◽  
Weihua Yin
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patient ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Prostate Cancer Patient ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Objective:To evaluate the role of prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer patient. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, and Web of Science through March 22, 2019 according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines to identify studies reporting on prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer patient. Results: Of a total of 1827 studies, 6 were considered for evidence synthesis. A total of 4476 patients in 4 studies were included for survival analysis, 2,779 patients received prostatectomy and 1,697 patients were received no treatment but regularly followed up. Two other studies were included for adverse effects analysis. Prostatectomy displayed a significantly decreased risk of death of 35% compared with observation (OR=0.65, 95%CI 0.53-0.81, P<0.0001). Pooled data indicated prostatectomy reduced 55% risk of disease progression (OR=0.45, 95% CI 0.34-0.60, P<0.00001). Anxiety, depressed mode, wellbeing, and sense of meaningfulness for patients were no difference between prostatectomy and observation group. However, prostatectomy increased 2.77 folds risk of erection dysfunction (OR=2.77, 95% CI, 1.60–4.81, P=0.0003 Conclusion: Prostatectomy prolonged survival and deferred disease progression compared to observation for localized prostate cancer patients. Symptoms between two groups were not significant difference except for erection function. Patients should decide prostatectomy or not after balancing the survival benefit and erection dysfunction.

scholarly journals Enough with the madness: a systematic review and meta-analysis of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-220
Author(s):  
André Santos ◽  
◽  
Érica Gonçalves ◽  
Ananda Oliveira ◽  
Douglas Lima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
P Value ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference

Objective: Because of preliminary results from in vitro studies, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) have been proposed as possible treatments for COVID-19, but the clinical evidence is discordant. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CQ and HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. An electronic search was conducted in four databases for randomized controlled trials that compared HCQ or CQ with standard-of-care. A complementary search was performed. A quantitative synthesis of clinical outcomes was performed using the inverse variance method adjusting for a random-effects model. Results: In total, 16 studies were included. The meta-analysis found no significant difference between intervention and control groups in terms of mortality at the most extended follow-up (RR = 1.09, CI95% = 0.99-1.19, p-value = 0.08), patients with negative PCR results (RR = 0.99, CI95% = 0.89-1.10, p-value = 0.86), or serious adverse events (RR = 2.21, CI95% = 0.89-5.47, p-value = 0.09). HCQ was associated with an increased risk of adverse events (RR = 2.28, CI95% = 1.36-2.83, p-value < 0.01). The quality of evidence varied from very low to high. Conclusion: There is no evidence that HCQ reduces the risk of death or improves cure rates in patients with COVID-19, but it might be associated with an increased risk of adverse events

Safety of Varenicline in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacy L. Haber ◽  
Virginia Boomershine ◽  
Erin Raney
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
History Of ◽  
Smoking Patterns ◽  
Effective Medication

Smoking cessation lowers the risk of death substantially in patients with cardiovascular disease. Although varenicline is an effective medication for smoking cessation, its safety in this population has been questioned and evaluated in several studies. In 2 randomized controlled trials of patients with cardiovascular disease, the rates of serious cardiovascular events were up to 2% higher in patients receiving varenicline than placebo, though the differences were not statistically significant. In the first meta-analysis of mostly trials involving patients with a history of cardiovascular disease, varenicline was found to significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular events by 72%; however, a second meta-analysis did not find a significant increased risk. In an observational study, varenicline was not associated with an increased risk of events when compared to bupropion in a subgroup analysis of patients with a history of cardiovascular disease. Because the evidence on the safety of varenicline in this population is limited and conflicting, additional data are needed to formulate stronger conclusions. In the meantime, health care professionals should consider individual smoking patterns, concomitant medical conditions, and cost when recommending smoking cessation pharmacotherapy for patients with cardiovascular disease.

scholarly journals The Mortality After Release from Incarceration Consortium (MARIC) study: Strengths of international data linkage

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan Borschmann ◽  
Stuart Kinner ◽  
Matthew Spittal
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Physical And Mental Health ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Crude Mortality Rate ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Individual Participant ◽  
History Of ◽  
International Data

IntroductionAdults released from incarceration experience complex physical and mental health problems, and are at markedly increased risk of preventable death. Despite this, not enough is known about the granular epidemiology of mortality in this population to inform development of targeted, evidence-based responses. Objectives and ApproachWe created the Mortality After Release from Incarceration Consortium (MARIC), a multi-disciplinary collaboration from 12 countries representing 30 cohorts of adults with a history of incarceration. The combined sample size is 1,210,168, with 58,840 deaths recorded over 8,261,743 person-years of follow-up time. In this protocol paper, using a two-step, individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDM-A) methodology involving 22 MARIC cohorts, we calculated 1) a crude mortality rate (CMR; with 95% confidence intervals) for each individual cohort over the first 84 days (12 weeks) following release; and 2) a combined, meta-analysed CMR for the same period. ResultsOf 1,704,208 individual releases, we observed 4,018 deaths over the first 84 days. The overall CMR over the first 84 days after release was 1610.97 deaths per 100,000 person-years (95% CI: 1263.4 - 1958.5). The rate was highest on the day of release (5768.0; 95% CI: 3296.5 - 8239.4), which was significantly higher than on days 4-84. Conclusion/ImplicationsAdults released from incarceration were at an acutely increased risk of death on the day of release, and this risk remained elevated for at least the first 12 weeks. The MARIC study will provide decisive and empirical evidence to guide clinicians and policy makers in reducing mortality in this marginalized

scholarly journals Mortality and high risk of major adverse events in patients with COVID-19 and history of cardiovascular disease

Open Heart ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e001526
Author(s):  
Elena Tessitore ◽  
David Carballo ◽  
Antoine Poncet ◽  
Nils Perrin ◽  
Cedric Follonier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Male Gender ◽  
Hospital Death ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
University Hospitals ◽  
Adverse Cardiovascular Event ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Hospitalised Patients ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
History Of

ObjectiveHistory of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) may influence the prognosis of patients hospitalised for COVID-19. We investigated whether patients with previous CVD have increased risk of death and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) when hospitalised for COVID-19.MethodsWe included 839 patients with COVID-19 hospitalised at the University Hospitals of Geneva. Demographic characteristics, medical history, laboratory values, ECG at admission and medications at admission were collected based on electronic medical records. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality or MACE.ResultsMedian age was 67 years, 453 (54%) were males and 277 (33%) had history of CVD. In total, 152 (18%) died and 687 (82%) were discharged, including 72 (9%) who survived a MACE. Patients with previous CVD were more at risk of composite outcomes 141/277 (51%) compared with those without CVD 83/562 (15%) (OR=6.0 (95% CI 4.3 to 8.4), p<0.001). Multivariate analyses showed that history of CVD remained an independent risk factor of in-hospital death or MACE (OR=2.4; (95% CI 1.6 to 3.5)), as did age (OR for a 10-year increase=2.2 (95% CI 1.9 to 2.6)), male gender (OR=1.6 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.3)), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR=2.1 (95% CI 1.0 to 4.2)) and lung infiltration associated with COVID-19 at CT scan (OR=1.9 (95% CI 1.2 to 3.0)). History of CVD (OR=2.9 (95% CI 1.7 to 5)), age (OR=2.5 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.2)), male gender (OR=1.6 (95% CI 0.98 to 2.6)) and elevated C reactive protein (CRP) levels on admission (OR for a 10 mg/L increase=1.1 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.2)) were independent risk factors for mortality.ConclusionHistory of CVD is associated with higher in-hospital mortality and MACE in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Other factors associated with higher in-hospital mortality are older age, male sex and elevated CRP on admission.

A Meta-Analysis of Extracorporeal Anticoagulants in Pediatric Continuous Kidney Replacement Therapy

2021 ◽  
pp. 088506662199275
Author(s):  
Rupesh Raina ◽  
Nirav Agrawal ◽  
Kirsten Kusumi ◽  
Avisha Pandey ◽  
Abhishek Tibrewal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Replacement Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Electrolyte Imbalance ◽  
Therapeutic Modality ◽  
Regional Citrate Anticoagulation ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Kidney Replacement Therapy

Objective: Continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT) is the primary therapeutic modality utilized in hemodynamically unstable patients with severe acute kidney injury. As the circuit is extracorporeal, it poses an increased risk of blood clotting and circuit loss; frequent circuit losses affect the provider’s ability to provide optimal treatment. The objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the extracorporeal anticoagulants in the pediatric CKRT population. Data Sources: We conducted a literature search on PubMed/Medline and Embase for relevant citations. Study Selection: Studies were included if they involved patients under the age of 18 years undergoing CKRT, with the use of anticoagulation (heparin, citrate, or prostacyclin) as a part of therapy. Only English articles were included in the study. Data Extraction: Initial search yielded 58 articles and a total of 24 articles were included and reviewed. A meta-analysis was performed focusing on the safety and effectiveness of regional citrate anticoagulation (RCA) vs unfractionated heparin (UFH) anticoagulants in children. Data Synthesis: RCA had statistically significantly longer circuit life of 50.65 hours vs. UFH of 42.10 hours. Two major adverse effects metabolic alkalosis and electrolyte imbalance seen more commonly in RCA compared to UFH. There was not a significant difference in the risk of systemic bleeding when comparing RCA vs. UFH. Conclusion: RCA is the preferred anticoagulant over UFH due to its significantly longer circuit life, although vigilant circuit monitoring is required due to the increased risk of electrolyte disturbances. Prostacyclin was not included in the meta-analysis due to the lack of data in pediatric patients. Additional studies are needed to strengthen the study results further.

scholarly journals Association of dyslipidemia with the severity and mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yanli Liu ◽  
Yilong Pan ◽  
Yuyao Yin ◽  
Wenhao Chen ◽  
Xiaodong Li
Keyword(s):  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Potential Association ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Language Restriction ◽  
Newcastle Ottawa Scale

Abstract Background The numbers of confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and COVID-19 related deaths are still increasing, so it is very important to determine the risk factors of COVID-19. Dyslipidemia is a common complication in patients with COVID-19, but the association of dyslipidemia with the severity and mortality of COVID-19 is still unclear. The aim of this study is to analyze the potential association of dyslipidemia with the severity and mortality of COVID-19. Methods We searched the PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases for all relevant studies up to August 24, 2020. All the articles published were retrieved without language restriction. All analysis was performed using Stata 13.1 software and Mantel–Haenszel formula with fixed effects models was used to compare the differences between studies. The Newcastle Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Results Twenty-eight studies involving 12,995 COVID-19 patients were included in the meta-analysis, which was consisted of 26 cohort studies and 2 case–control studies. Dyslipidemia was associated with the severity of COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11–1.44, P = 0.038, I2 = 39.8%). Further, patients with dyslipidemia had a 2.13-fold increased risk of death compared to patients without dyslipidemia (95% CI 1.84–2.47, P = 0.001, I2 = 66.4%). Conclusions The results proved that dyslipidemia is associated with increased severity and mortality of COVID-19. Therefore, we should monitor blood lipids and administer active treatments in COVID-19 patients with dyslipidemia to reduce the severity and mortality.

Abstract 13315: Long-term Risk of Cardiovascular Events Following Hospitalization for Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leah B Kosyakovsky ◽  
Federico Angriman ◽  
Emma Katz ◽  
Neill Adhikari ◽  
Lucas C Godoy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cumulative Incidence ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Sepsis Survivors ◽  
Risk Ratios

Introduction: Sepsis results in dysregulated inflammation, coagulation, and metabolism, which may contribute to increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the association between sepsis and subsequent long-term CVD events. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from inception to May 2020 to identify observational studies of adult sepsis survivors (defined by diagnostic codes or consensus definitions) measuring long-term CV outcomes. The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, CV death, and stroke. Random-effects models estimated the pooled cumulative incidence and adjusted hazard ratios of CV events relative to hospital or population controls. Odds ratios were included as risk ratios assuming <10% incidence in non-septic controls, and risk ratios were taken as hazard ratios (HR) assuming no censoring. Outcomes were analyzed at maximum follow-up (primary analysis) and stratified by time (<1 year, 1-2 years, and >2 years) since sepsis. Results: Of 11,235 abstracts screened, 25 studies (22 cohort studies, 2 case-crossover studies, and 1 case-control) involving 1,949,793 sepsis survivors were included. The pooled cumulative incidence of CVD events was 9% (95% CI; 5-14%). Sepsis was associated with an increased risk (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.37-1.86) of CVD events at maximum follow-up ( Figure ); between-study heterogeneity was substantial (I 2 =97.3%). There was no significant difference when comparing studies using population and hospital controls. Significantly elevated risk was observed up to 5 years following sepsis. Conclusions: Sepsis survivors experience an approximately 50% increased risk of CVD events, which may persist for years following the index episode. These results highlight a potential unmet need for early cardiac risk stratification and optimization in sepsis survivors.

MO817ALDOSTERONE ANTAGONISTS FOR PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE REQUIRING DIALYSIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Takeshi Hasegawa ◽  
Hiroki Nihiwaki ◽  
Erika Ota ◽  
William Levack ◽  
Hisashi Noma
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cardiovascular Death ◽  
Aldosterone Antagonists ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Increased Risk

Abstract Background and Aims Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing dialysis are at a particularly high risk of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the benefits and harms of aldosterone antagonists, both non-selective (spironolactone) and selective (eplerenone), in comparison to control (placebo or standard care) in patients with CKD requiring haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. Method We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 29 July 2019 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included individual and cluster randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over trials, and quasi-RCTs that compared aldosterone antagonists with placebo or standard care in patients with CKD requiring dialysis. We used a random-effects model meta-analysis to perform a quantitative synthesis of the data. We used the I2 statistic to measure heterogeneity among the trials in each analysis. We indicated summary estimates as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with their 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence for each of the main outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Results We included 16 trials (14 parallel RCTs and two cross-over trials) involving a total of 1,446 patients. Among included studies, 13 trials compared spironolactone to placebo or standard care and one trial compared eplerenone to a placebo. Most studies had an unclear or high risk of bias. Compared to control, aldosterone antagonists reduced the risk of all-cause death for patients with CKD requiring dialysis (9 trials, 1,119 patients: RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.67; moderate certainty of evidence). Aldosterone antagonist also decreased the risk of death due to cardiovascular disease (6 trials, 908 patients: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.64; moderate certainty of evidence) and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular morbidity (3 trials, 328 patients: RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.76; moderate certainty of evidence). While aldosterone antagonists had an apparent increased risk of gynaecomastia compared with control (4 trials, 768 patients: RR 5.95, 95% CI 1.93 to 18.3; moderate certainty of evidence), the elevated risk of hyperkalaemia due to aldosterone antagonists was uncertain (9 trials, 981 patients: RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.78; low certainty of evidence). Conclusion Based on moderate certainty of the evidence, aldosterone antagonists could reduce the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death and morbidity due to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease but increase the risk of gynaecomastia in patients with CKD requiring dialysis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document