scholarly journals Severity and case fatality rates of COVID-19: a systematic review, meta-analysis and an exploratory meta-regression of risk factors

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (41) ◽  
pp. 8-19
Author(s):  
Chathurika Samudani Dhanasekara ◽  
Shao-Hua Chin ◽  
Chanaka N. Kahathuduwa
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Critical Illness ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Fatality ◽  
Severe Illness ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Regression Analyses ◽  
Meta Regression

Background: We aimed to estimate prevalence of severe or critical illness and case fatality of COVID-19 in a systematic review and meta-analysis and to examine clinical, biochemical and radiological risk factors in a meta-regression. Methods: PRISMA guidelines were followed. PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were searched using pre-specified keywords.  Peer-reviewed empirical studies examining rates of severe illness, critical illness and case fatality among COVID-19 patients were examined. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed and adjusted for publication bias. Meta-regression analyses examined the moderator effects of risk factors. Results: The meta-analysis included 29 studies representing 2,090 individuals. Pooled prevalence rates of severe illness, critical illness and case fatality among COVID-19 patients were 15%, 5% and 0.8% respectively. There were significant heterogeneity and publication bias related with the studies. Meta-regression analyses revealed that increasing age and elevated LDH consistently predicted severe / critical disease and case fatality. Moreover, hypertension; fever and dyspnea at presentation; and elevated CRP predicted increased severity. Conclusions: Emerged predictors of severity and case fatality should inform clinicians to define at-risk endophenotypes. Differences in un-adjusted vs. adjusted pooled estimates indicates limited utility of small-scale studies and underscores the importance of multi-national studies to establish the morbidity and mortality rates in pandemics.

scholarly journals Case fatality rate in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chanaka Kahathuduwa ◽  
Chathurika Dhanasekara ◽  
Shao-Hua Chin
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Critical Illness ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Case Fatality Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Fatality ◽  
Severe Illness ◽  
Fatality Rate ◽  
Meta Regression

AbstractBackgroundEstimating the prevalence of severe or critical illness and case fatality of COVID-19 outbreak in December, 2019 remains a challenge due to biases associated with surveillance, data synthesis and reporting. We aimed to address this limitation in a systematic review and meta-analysis and to examine the clinical, biochemical and radiological risk factors in a meta-regression.MethodsPRISMA guidelines were followed. PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were searched using pre-specified keywords on March 07, 2020. Peer-reviewed empirical studies examining rates of severe illness, critical illness and case fatality among COVID-19 patients were examined. Numerators and denominators to compute the prevalence rates and risk factors were extracted. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed. Results were corrected for publication bias. Meta-regression analyses examined the moderator effects of potential risk factors.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 29 studies representing 2,090 individuals. Pooled rates of severe illness, critical illness and case fatality among COVID-19 patients were 15%, 5% and 0.8% respectively. Adjusting for potential underreporting and publication bias, increased these estimates to 26%, 16% and 7.4% respectively. Increasing age and elevated LDH consistently predicted severe / critical disease and case fatality. Hypertension; fever and dyspnea at presentation; and elevated CRP predicted increased severity.ConclusionsRisk factors that emerged in our analyses predicting severity and case fatality should inform clinicians to define endophenotypes possessing a greater risk. Estimated case fatality rate of 7.4% after correcting for publication bias underscores the importance of strict adherence to preventive measures, case detection, surveillance and reporting.

scholarly journals The relationship of COVID-19 severity with cardiovascular disease and its traditional risk factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunihiro Matsushita ◽  
Ning Ding ◽  
Minghao Kou ◽  
Xiao Hu ◽  
Mengkun Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Renin Angiotensin System ◽  
Regression Analyses ◽  
Male Sex ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Traditional Risk Factors

AbstractBackgroundWhether cardiovascular disease (CVD) and its traditional risk factors predict severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is uncertain, in part, because of potential confounding by age and sex.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of studies that explored pre-existing CVD and its traditional risk factors as risk factors of severe COVID-19 (defined as death, acute respiratory distress syndrome, mechanical ventilation, or intensive care unit admission). We searched PubMed and Embase for papers in English with original data (≥10 cases of severe COVID-19). Using random-effects models, we pooled relative risk (RR) estimates and conducted meta-regression analyses.ResultsOf the 661 publications identified in our search, 25 papers met our inclusion criteria, with 76,638 COVID-19 patients including 11,766 severe cases. Older age was consistently associated with severe COVID-19 in all eight eligible studies, with RR >∼5 in >60-65 vs. <50 years. Three studies showed no change in the RR of age after adjusting for covariate(s). In univariate analyses, factors robustly associated with severe COVID-19 were male sex (10 studies; pooled RR=1.73, [95%CI 1.50-2.01]), hypertension (8 studies; 2.87 [2.09-3.93]), diabetes (9 studies; 3.20 [2.26-4.53]), and CVD (10 studies; 4.97 [3.76-6.58]). RR for male sex was likely to be independent of age. For the other three factors, meta-regression analyses suggested confounding by age. Only four studies reported multivariable analysis, but most of them showed adjusted RR ∼2 for hypertension, diabetes, and CVD. No study explored renin-angiotensin system inhibitors as a risk factor for severe COVID-19.ConclusionsDespite the potential for confounding, these results suggest that hypertension, diabetes, and CVD are independently associated with severe COVID-19 and, together with age and male sex, can be used to inform objective decisions on COVID-19 testing, clinical management, and workforce planning.

scholarly journals The prevalence of diabetes in Afghanistan: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sohail Akhtar ◽  
Jamal Abdul Nasir ◽  
Amara Javed ◽  
Mariyam Saleem ◽  
Sundas Sajjad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Included Study ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Or Education ◽  
Meta Regression

Abstract Background The aim of this paper is to investigate the prevalence of diabetes and its associated risk factors in Afghanistan through a systematic review and meta–analysis. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted using EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Sciences, Google Scholar and the Cochrane library, carried out from inception to April 312,020, without language restriction. Meta–analysis was performed using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models with inverse variance weighting. The existence of publication bias was initially assessed by visual inspection of a funnel plot and then tested by the Egger regression test. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were used to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. This systematic review was reported by following the PRISMA guidelines and the methodological quality of each included study was evaluated using the STROBE guidelines. Results Out of 64 potentially relevant studies, only 06 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were considered for meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of diabetes in the general population based on population-based studies were 12.13% (95% CI: 8.86–16.24%), based on a pooled sample of 7071 individuals. Results of univariate meta-regression analysis revealed that the prevalence of diabetes increased with mean age, hypertension and obesity. There was no significant association between sex (male vs female), smoking, the methodological quality of included articles or education (illiterate vs literate) and the prevalence of diabetes. Conclusions This meta-analysis reports the 12.13% prevalence of diabetes in Afghanistan,with the highest prevalence in Kandahar and the lowest in Balkh province. The main risk factors include increasing age, obesity and hypertension. Community-based care and preventive training programmes are recommended. Trial registration This review was registered on PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020172624).

scholarly journals Rates and risk factors for suicidal ideation, suicide attempts and suicide deaths in persons with HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. e100247
Author(s):  
Matt Pelton ◽  
Matt Ciarletta ◽  
Holly Wisnousky ◽  
Nicholas Lazzara ◽  
Monica Manglani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Suicidal Ideation ◽  
General Population ◽  
Suicide Attempts ◽  
Advanced Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
People Living With Hiv ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Living With Hiv

BackgroundPeople living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) must contend with a significant burden of disease. However, current studies of this demographic have yielded wide variations in the incidence of suicidality (defined as suicidal ideation, suicide attempt and suicide deaths).AimsThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the lifetime incidence and prevalence of suicidality in PLWHA.MethodsPublications were identified from PubMed (MEDLINE), SCOPUS, OVID (MEDLINE), Joanna Briggs Institute EBP and Cochrane Library databases (from inception to before 1 February 2020). The search strategy included a combination of Medical Subject Headings associated with suicide and HIV. Researchers independently screened records, extracted outcome measures and assessed study quality. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were conducted to explore the associated risk factors and to identify the sources of heterogeneity. Main outcomes were lifetime incidence of suicide completion and lifetime incidence and prevalence of suicidal ideation and suicide attempt.ResultsA total of 185 199 PLWHA were identified from 40 studies (12 cohorts, 27 cross-sectional and 1 nested case-control). The overall incidence of suicide completion in PLWHA was 10.2/1000 persons (95%CI: 4.5 to 23.1), translating to 100-fold higher suicide deaths than the global general population rate of 0.11/1000 persons. The lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts was 158.3/1000 persons (95%CI: 106.9 to 228.2) and of suicidal ideation was 228.3/1000 persons (95%CI: 150.8 to 330.1). Meta-regression revealed that for every 10-percentage point increase in the proportion of people living with HIV with advanced disease (AIDS), the risk of suicide completion increased by 34 per 1000 persons. The quality of evidence by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations for the suicide deaths was graded as ‘moderate’ quality.ConclusionsThe risk of suicide death is 100-fold higher in people living with HIV than in the general population. Lifetime incidence of suicidal ideation and attempts are substantially high. Suicide risk assessments should be a priority in PLWHA, especially for those with more advanced disease.

scholarly journals Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of COVID-19–Infected Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hua Zhang ◽  
Han Han ◽  
Tianhui He ◽  
Kristen E Labbe ◽  
Adrian V Hernandez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Case Fatality Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Case Fatality ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fatality Rate ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Increased Risk

Abstract Background Previous studies have indicated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with cancer have a high fatality rate. Methods We conducted a systematic review of studies that reported fatalities in COVID-19 patients with cancer. A comprehensive meta-analysis that assessed the overall case fatality rate and associated risk factors was performed. Using individual patient data, univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to estimate odds ratios (OR) for each variable with outcomes. Results We included 15 studies with 3019 patients, of which 1628 were men; 41.0% were from the United Kingdom and Europe, followed by the United States and Canada (35.7%), and Asia (China, 23.3%). The overall case fatality rate of COVID-19 patients with cancer measured 22.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 17.3% to 28.0%). Univariate analysis revealed age (OR = 3.57, 95% CI = 1.80 to 7.06), male sex (OR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.07 to 4.13), and comorbidity (OR = 2.00, 95% CI = 1.04 to 3.85) were associated with increased risk of severe events (defined as the individuals being admitted to the intensive care unit, or requiring invasive ventilation, or death). In multivariable analysis, only age greater than 65 years (OR = 3.16, 95% CI = 1.45 to 6.88) and being male (OR = 2.29, 95% CI = 1.07 to 4.87) were associated with increased risk of severe events. Conclusions Our analysis demonstrated that COVID-19 patients with cancer have a higher fatality rate compared with that of COVID-19 patients without cancer. Age and sex appear to be risk factors associated with a poorer prognosis.

scholarly journals Progression to type 2 diabetes in women with a known history of gestational diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. m1361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elpida Vounzoulaki ◽  
Kamlesh Khunti ◽  
Sophia C Abner ◽  
Bee K Tan ◽  
Melanie J Davies ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Healthy Controls ◽  
Regression Analyses ◽  
White Population ◽  
History Of ◽  
Meta Regression

AbstractObjectiveTo estimate and compare progression rates to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and healthy controls.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline and Embase between January 2000 and December 2019, studies published in English and conducted on humans.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesObservational studies investigating progression to T2DM. Inclusion criteria were postpartum follow-up for at least 12 months, incident physician based diagnosis of diabetes, T2DM reported as a separate outcome rather than combined with impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance, and studies with both a group of patients with GDM and a control group.ResultsThis meta-analysis of 20 studies assessed a total of 1 332 373 individuals (67 956 women with GDM and 1 264 417 controls). Data were pooled by random effects meta-analysis models, and heterogeneity was assessed by use of the I2 statistic. The pooled relative risk for the incidence of T2DM between participants with GDM and controls was estimated. Reasons for heterogeneity between studies were investigated by prespecified subgroup and meta-regression analyses. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots and, overall, studies were deemed to have a low risk of bias (P=0.58 and P=0.90). The overall relative risk for T2DM was almost 10 times higher in women with previous GDM than in healthy controls (9.51, 95% confidence interval 7.14 to 12.67, P<0.001). In populations of women with previous GDM, the cumulative incidence of T2DM was 16.46% (95% confidence interval 16.16% to 16.77%) in women of mixed ethnicity, 15.58% (13.30% to 17.86%) in a predominantly non-white population, and 9.91% (9.39% to 10.42%) in a white population. These differences were not statistically significant between subgroups (white v mixed populations, P=0.26; white v non-white populations, P=0.54). Meta-regression analyses showed that the study effect size was not significantly associated with mean study age, body mass index, publication year, and length of follow-up.ConclusionsWomen with a history of GDM appear to have a nearly 10-fold higher risk of developing T2DM than those with a normoglycaemic pregnancy. The magnitude of this risk highlights the importance of intervening to prevent the onset of T2DM, particularly in the early years after pregnancy.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019123079.

scholarly journals Variation in outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation between different countries for patients with severe COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hany Hasan Elsayed ◽  
Aly Sherif Hassaballa ◽  
Taha Aly Ahmed ◽  
Mohamed Gumaa ◽  
Hazem Youssef Sharkawy
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Mortality Risk ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Meta Regression

Abstract Background: COVID 19 is the most recent cause of Adult respiratory distress syndrome ARDS. Invasive mechanical ventilation IMV can support gas exchange in patients failing non-invasive ventilation, but its reported outcome is highly variable between countries. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on IMV for COVID-associated ARDS to study its outcome among different countries.Methods: CENTRAL, MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched from June 8 2019 to June 8, 2020. Studies reporting five or more patients with end point outcome for severe COVID 19 infection treated with IMV were included. The main outcome assessed was mortality. Baseline, procedural, outcome, and validity data were systematically appraised and pooled with random-effect methods. Subgroup analysis for different countries was performed. Meta-regression for the effect of study timing and patient age and were tested. Publication bias was examined. This trial was registered with PROSPERO under registration number CRD42020190365Findings: Our electronic search retrieved 4770 citations, 103 of which were selected for full-text review. Twenty-one studies with a combined population of 37359 patients with COVID-19 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. From this population, 5800 patients were treated by invasive mechanical ventilation. Out of those, 3301 patients reached an endpoint of ICU discharge or death after invasive mechanical ventilation while the rest were still in the ICU. Mortality from IMV was highly variable among the included studies ranging between 21% and 100%. Random-effect pooled estimates suggested an overall in-hospital mortality risk ratio of 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.608 to 0.797; I2 = 98%). Subgroup analysis according to country of origin showed homogeneity in the 8 Chinese studies with high pooled mortality risk ratio of 0.97 (I2 = 24%, p=0.23) (95% CI = 0.94-1.00), similar to Italy with a low pooled mortality risk ratio of 0.26 (95% CI 0.08-0.43) with homogeneity (p=0.86) while the later larger studies coming from the USA showed pooled estimate mortality risk ratio of 0.60 (95% CI 0.43-0.76) with persistent heterogeneity (I2 = 98%, p<0.001). Meta-regression showed that outcome from IMV improved with time (p<0.001). Age had no statistically significant effect on mortality (p= 0.102). Publication bias was excluded by visualizing the funnel plot of standard error, Egger's test with p=0.714 and Begg&Mazumdar test with p=0.334Interpretation: The study included the largest number of patients with outcome findings of IMV in this current pandemic. Our findings showed that the use of IMV for selected COVID 19 patients with severe ARDS carries a high mortality, but outcome has improved over the last few months and in more recent studies. The results should encourage physicians to use this facility when indicated for severely ill COVID-19 patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document