scholarly journals Clinical, laboratory, and radiologic findings associated with mortality in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hoo Jung Rhim ◽  
Jin Hyun Park ◽  
Yuna Lee ◽  
Seung Chan Kwon ◽  
Min Gyu Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Troponin I ◽  
Clinical Laboratory ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Outcome Analysis ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Case Series Study

Abstract Although there has been a surge in reports on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the clinical signs and findings associated with fatal outcomes have rarely been studied. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the clinical, laboratory, and radiologic features associated with mortality in COVID-19. A comprehensive search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and other databases including government sources, for articles and reports published until May 1, 2020. We extracted the number of events (mortality and non-mortality) from case series and case-control and cross-sectional studies. Hazard ratios (HR) of each finding were extracted from studies with time-to-outcome analysis. In total, 23 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of them, 18 studies were case-control, cross-sectional, and case series study. Whereas, only 5 studies included time-to-outcome analysis. Male sex, age over 80 years, dyspnea, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, increased troponin I level, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, and need of invasive mechanical ventilation were significantly associated with mortality. The identification of patients at higher risk of mortality has an utmost importance to achieve better treatment outcomes. The findings from our study may aid the prioritization in times of severe shortages of medical resources. Further studies analyzing diverse demographic and geographic populations are needed to generalize the findings from this study.

scholarly journals Potentially Effective Drugs for the Treatment of COVID-19 or MIS-C in Children: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zijun Wang ◽  
Siya Zhao ◽  
Yuyi Tang ◽  
Zhili Wang ◽  
Qianling Shi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Case Series Study

Abstract Introduction: The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of using potential drugs: remdesivir and glucocorticoid in treating children and adolescents with COVID-19 and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in treating MIS-C. Methods: We searched seven databases, three preprint platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google from December 1, 2019, to August 5, 2021, to collect evidence of remdesivir, glucocorticoid, and IVIG which were used in children and adolescents with COVID-19 or MIS-C. Results: A total of nine cohort studies and one case series study were included in this systematic review. In terms of remdesivir, the meta-analysis of single-arm cohort studies have shown that, after the treatment, 54.7% (95%CI, 10.3% to 99.1%) experienced adverse events, 5.6% (95%CI, 1.2% to 10.1%) died, 27.0% (95%CI, 0% to 73.0%) needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or invasive mechanical ventilation. As for glucocorticoids, the results of the meta-analysis showed that the fixed-effect summary odds ratio for the association with mortality was 2.79 (95%CI, 0.13 to 60.87), and the mechanical ventilation rate was 3.12 (95%CI, 0.80 to 12.08) for glucocorticoids compared with the control group. In terms of IVIG, most of the included cohort studies showed that for MIS-C patients with more severe clinical symptoms, IVIG combined with methylprednisolone could achieve better clinical efficacy than IVIG alone.Conclusions: Overall, the current evidence in the included studies is insignificant and of low quality. It is recommended to conduct high-quality randomized controlled trials of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, and IVIG in children and adolescents with COVID-19 or MIS-C to provide substantial evidence for the development of guidelines.

scholarly journals Neurology and neuropsychiatry of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the early literature reveals frequent CNS manifestations and key emerging narratives

2021 ◽  
pp. jnnp-2021-326405
Author(s):  
Jonathan P Rogers ◽  
Cameron J Watson ◽  
James Badenoch ◽  
Benjamin Cross ◽  
Matthew Butler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neuropsychiatric Symptoms ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Early Literature ◽  
Cross Sectional Studies

There is accumulating evidence of the neurological and neuropsychiatric features of infection with SARS-CoV-2. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to describe the characteristics of the early literature and estimate point prevalences for neurological and neuropsychiatric manifestations. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL up to 18 July 2020 for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies and case series. Studies reporting prevalences of neurological or neuropsychiatric symptoms were synthesised into meta-analyses to estimate pooled prevalence. 13 292 records were screened by at least two authors to identify 215 included studies, of which there were 37 cohort studies, 15 case-control studies, 80 cross-sectional studies and 83 case series from 30 countries. 147 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The symptoms with the highest prevalence were anosmia (43.1% (95% CI 35.2% to 51.3%), n=15 975, 63 studies), weakness (40.0% (95% CI 27.9% to 53.5%), n=221, 3 studies), fatigue (37.8% (95% CI 31.6% to 44.4%), n=21 101, 67 studies), dysgeusia (37.2% (95% CI 29.8% to 45.3%), n=13 686, 52 studies), myalgia (25.1% (95% CI 19.8% to 31.3%), n=66 268, 76 studies), depression (23.0% (95% CI 11.8% to 40.2%), n=43 128, 10 studies), headache (20.7% (95% CI 16.1% to 26.1%), n=64 613, 84 studies), anxiety (15.9% (5.6% to 37.7%), n=42 566, 9 studies) and altered mental status (8.2% (95% CI 4.4% to 14.8%), n=49 326, 19 studies). Heterogeneity for most clinical manifestations was high. Neurological and neuropsychiatric symptoms of COVID-19 in the pandemic’s early phase are varied and common. The neurological and psychiatric academic communities should develop systems to facilitate high-quality methodologies, including more rapid examination of the longitudinal course of neuropsychiatric complications of newly emerging diseases and their relationship to neuroimaging and inflammatory biomarkers.

scholarly journals Potentially effective drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 or MIS-C in children: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zijun Wang ◽  
Siya Zhao ◽  
Yuyi Tang ◽  
Zhili Wang ◽  
Qianling Shi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Case Series Study

AbstractIntroductionThe purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of using potential drugs: remdesivir and glucocorticoid in treating children and adolescents with COVID-19 and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in treating MIS-C.MethodsWe searched seven databases, three preprint platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google from December 1, 2019, to August 5, 2021, to collect evidence of remdesivir, glucocorticoid, and IVIG which were used in children and adolescents with COVID-19 or MIS-C.ResultsA total of six cohort studies and one case series study were included in this systematic review. In terms of remdesivir, the meta-analysis of single-arm cohort studies have shown that, after the treatment, 37.1% (95%CI, 0.0% to 74.5%) experienced adverse events, 5.9% (95%CI, 1.5% to 10.2%) died, 37.2% (95%CI, 0% to 76.0%) needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or invasive mechanical ventilation. As for glucocorticoids, the results of the meta-analysis showed that the fixed-effect summary odds ratio for the association with mortality was 2.79 (95%CI, 0.13 to 60.87), and the mechanical ventilation rate was 3.12 (95%CI, 0.80 to 12.08) for glucocorticoids compared with the control group. In terms of IVIG, the two included cohort studies showed that for MIS-C patients with more severe clinical symptoms, IVIG combined with methylprednisolone could achieve better clinical efficacy than IVIG alone.ConclusionsOverall, the current evidence in the included studies is insignificant and of low quality. It is recommended to conduct high-quality randomized controlled trials of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, and IVIG in children and adolescents with COVID-19 or MIS-C to provide substantial evidence for the development of guidelines.

scholarly journals The neurology and neuropsychiatry of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the early literature reveals frequent CNS manifestations and key emerging narratives

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan P Rogers ◽  
Cameron Watson ◽  
James Badenoch ◽  
Benjamin Cross ◽  
Matthew Butler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neuropsychiatric Symptoms ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Early Literature ◽  
Cross Sectional Studies

Objectives There is accumulating evidence of the neurological and neuropsychiatric features of infection with SARS-CoV-2. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to describe the characteristics of the early literature and estimate point prevalences for neurological and neuropsychiatric manifestations. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL up to 18 July 2020 for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies and case series. Studies reporting prevalences of neurological or neuropsychiatric symptoms were synthesised into meta-analyses to estimate pooled prevalence. Results 13,292 records were screened by at least two authors to identify 215 included studies, of which there were 37 cohort studies, 15 case-control studies, 80 cross-sectional studies and 83 case series from 30 countries. 147 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The symptoms with the highest prevalence were anosmia (43.1% [35.2-51.3], n=15,975, 63 studies), weakness (40.0% [27.9-53.5], n=221, 3 studies), fatigue (37.8% [31.6-44.4], n=21,101, 67 studies), dysgeusia (37.2% [30.0-45.3], n=13,686, 52 studies), myalgia (25.1% [19.8-31.3], n=66.268, 76 studies), depression (23.0 % [11.8-40.2], n=43,128, 10 studies), headache (20.7% [95% CI 16.1-26.1], n=64,613, 84 studies), anxiety (15.9% [5.6-37.7], n=42,566, 9 studies) and altered mental status (8.2% [4.4-14.8], n=49,326, 19 studies). Heterogeneity for most clinical manifestations was high. Conclusions Neurological and neuropsychiatric symptoms of COVID-19 in the pandemic's early phase are varied and common. The neurological and psychiatric academic communities should develop systems to facilitate high-quality methodologies, including more rapid examination of the longitudinal course of neuropsychiatric complications of newly emerging diseases and their relationship to neuroimaging and inflammatory biomarkers.

scholarly journals Clinical Characteristics, Treatments and Outcomes of 18 Lung Transplant Recipients with COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-245
Author(s):  
René Hage ◽  
Carolin Steinack ◽  
Fiorenza Gautschi ◽  
Susan Pfister ◽  
Ilhan Inci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Transplant ◽  
Clinical Laboratory ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Transplant Recipients ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Laboratory Findings ◽  
Case Series Study ◽  
Lung Transplant Recipients

We report clinical features, treatments and outcomes in 18 lung transplant recipients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. We performed a single center, retrospective case series study of lung transplant recipients, who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 1 February 2020 and 1 March 2021. Clinical, laboratory and radiology findingswere obtained. Treatment regimens and patient outcome data were obtained by reviewing the electronic medical record. Mean age was 49.9 (22–68) years, and twelve (67%) patients were male. The most common symptoms were fever (n = 9, 50%), nausea/vomiting (n = 7, 39%), cough (n = 6, 33%), dyspnea (n = 6, 33%) and fatigue (n = 6, 33%). Headache was reported by five patients (28%). The most notable laboratory findings were elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). Computed Tomography (CT) of the chest was performed in all hospitalized patients (n = 11, 7%), and showed ground-glass opacities (GGO) in 11 patients (100%), of whom nine (82%) had GGO combined with pulmonary consolidations. Six (33%) patients received remdesivir, five (28%) intravenous dexamethasone either alone or in combination with remdesivir, and 15 (83%) were treated with broad spectrum antibiotics including co-amoxicillin, tazobactam-piperacillin and meropenem. Four (22%) patients were transferred to the intensive care unit, two patients (11%) required invasive mechanical ventilation who could not be successfully extubated and died. Eighty-nine percent of our patients survived COVID-19 and were cured. Two patients with severe COVID-19 did not survive.

Abstract P116: Chronic Kidney Disease And Cardiac Arrhythmias: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 141 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Esther D Kim ◽  
Ning Ding ◽  
Junichi Ishigami ◽  
Xuejuan Ning ◽  
Yijing Feng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Prospective Studies ◽  
Cardiac Arrhythmias ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Relationship

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) strongly predicts sudden cardiac death and may elevate the risk of certain cardiac arrhythmias like atrial fibrillation; however, the relationships between CKD and various types of arrhythmia are not well-characterized. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching Embase and PubMed for prospective, cross-sectional, and case-control studies examining the associations of two key CKD measures, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and albuminuria, with arrhythmias in adults that were published until July 2018. We performed qualitative assessment of studies using the Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. We pooled the results using random-effects models. Results: Among 16,245 articles, we identified 34 prospective (n=24,213,233), 21 cross-sectional (n=253,328), and 4 case-control (n=1,694) studies that included diverse study populations from 19 countries and were mostly high quality. Most prospective studies examined the relationship between eGFR and atrial fibrillation (AF), and demonstrated that lower eGFR was associated with a higher risk of AF (pooled hazard ratio [HR] 1.72 [95% CI: 1.30, 2.27] comparing reduced vs. referent eGFR groups)[ Figure ]. A few studies examined albuminuria and demonstrated its associations with AF (pooled HR 2.16 [95% CI: 1.74, 2.67] comparing high vs. low albuminuria). Results were similar for cross-sectional studies. Four prospective studies reported a higher incidence of ventricular tachycardia resulting in ICD shock according to reduced eGFR (pooled HR 2.32 [95% CI: 1.74, 3.09] comparing reduced vs. referent eGFR groups). Limited number of studies examined other types of arrhythmia. Conclusion: We identified robust data on the relationship between CKD (eGFR and albuminuria) and AF. Reduced eGFR was associated with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Our review highlights the need of future studies for non-AF arrhythmias, especially in the context of albuminuria.

scholarly journals Psychosis in children of separated parents: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Ayerbe ◽  
María Pérez-Piñar ◽  
Quintí Foguet-Boreu ◽  
Salma Ayis
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Psychotic Disorders ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Childhood Adversity ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Parental Separation ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Cross Sectional Studies

Abstract Background. Parental separation is a very common childhood adversity. The association between other adverse childhood experiences and an increased risk of psychosis has been reported. However, the evidence on the risk of psychosis for children of separated parents is limited. In this systematic review, cohort, case–control, and cross-sectional studies, comparing the risk of psychotic disorders for people with and without separated parents, were searched, critically appraised, and summarized. Methods. Studies were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science, from database inception to September 2019. A meta-analysis, using random-effects models, was undertaken to obtain pooled estimates of the risk of psychosis among participants with separated parents. Results. Twelve studies, with 305,652 participants from 22 countries, were included in the review. A significantly increased risk of psychosis for those with separated parents was observed, with a pooled odds ratio: 1.53 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.29–1.76), p < 0.001. The association remained significant when cohort, case–control, and cross-sectional studies were analyzed separately. The five cohort studies included in this review showed and increased risk of psychosis with odds ratio: 1.47 (95% CI: 1.26–1.69), p < 0.001. Conclusions. Parental separation is a common childhood adversity associated with an increased risk of psychosis. Although the risk for an individual child of separated parents is still low, given the high proportion of couple that separate, the increased rates of psychosis may be substantial in the population. Further studies on the risk of psychosis in those with separated parents, and the explanatory factors for this association, are required.

scholarly journals Epidemiology of gastric cancer in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Celestin Danwang ◽  
Jean Joel Bigna
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Case Fatality ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
The Usa

Abstract Background Gastric cancer is actually known as the sixth most frequent cancer and the second cancer-related cause of death worldwide. If studies giving an overview of current epidemiology of gastric cancer in Europe, Asia, and the USA are available, in Africa, studies reporting recent data on gastric cancer are sparse. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim therefore to provide relevant data on contemporary epidemiology of gastric cancer in Africa in terms of prevalence, incidence, and case fatality rate. Methods and design We will include cohort, case-control, cross-sectional studies, and case series with more than 30 participants. EMBASE, PubMed, Africa Index Medicus, Africa Journals Online, and Web of Science will be searched for relevant abstracts of studies published and unpublished between January 1, 2000, and April 30, 2019, without language restriction. The review will be reported according to the MOOSE (Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guideline. After screening of abstracts, study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment, we shall assess the studies individually for clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Random-effect meta-analysis will be used to pool studies judged to be clinically homogenous. The Egger test and visual inspection of funnel plots will be used to assess publication bias. Discussion This review will provide relevant data on the current burden of gastric cancer in Africa. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019130348.

scholarly journals Urinary incontinence and quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damiano Pizzol ◽  
Jacopo Demurtas ◽  
Stefano Celotto ◽  
Stefania Maggi ◽  
Lee Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Urinary Incontinence ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Sf 36

Abstract Background Urinary incontinence (UI) and low quality of life (QoL) are two common conditions. Some recent literature proposed that these two entities can be associated. However, no attempt was made to collate this literature. Therefore, the aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing data to estimate the strength of the association between UI and QoL. Methods An electronic search of major databases up to 18th April 2020 was carried out. Meta-analysis of cross-sectional and case–control studies comparing mean values in QoL between patients with UI and controls was performed, reporting random-effects standardized mean differences (SMDs) ± 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the effect size. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2. Results Out of 8279 articles initially screened, 23 were finally included for a total of 24,983 participants, mainly women. The mean age was ≥ 50 years in 12/23 studies. UI was significantly associated with poor QoL as assessed by the short-form 36 (SF-36) total score (n = 6 studies; UI: 473 vs. 2971 controls; SMD = − 0.89; 95% CI − 1.3 to − 0.42; I2 = 93.5) and by the sub-scales of SF-36 and 5/8 of the domains included in the SF-36. Similar results were found using other QoL tools. The risk of bias of the studies included was generally high. Conclusions UI is associated with a poor QoL, with a strong level of certainty. This work, however, mainly based on cross-sectional and case–control studies, highlights the necessity of future longitudinal studies for better understanding the importance of UI on QoL.

scholarly journals Anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Saad Alhumaid ◽  
Abbas Al Mutair ◽  
Zainab Al Alawi ◽  
Ali A. Rabaan ◽  
Raghavendra Tirupathi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
History Of

Abstract Background Currently there is no systematic review and meta-analysis of the global incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the general adult population. Objectives To estimate the incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions after COVID-19 vaccines and describe the demographic and clinical characteristics, triggers, presenting signs and symptoms, treatment and clinical course of confirmed cases. Design A systematic review and meta-analysis. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [PRISMA] statement was followed. Methods Electronic databases (Proquest, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, and Nature) were searched from 1 December 2020 to 31 May 2021 in the English language using the following keywords alone or in combination: anaphylaxis, non-anaphylaxis, anaphylactic reaction, nonanaphylactic reaction, anaphylactic/anaphylactoid shock, hypersensitivity, allergy reaction, allergic reaction, immunology reaction, immunologic reaction, angioedema, loss of consciousness, generalized erythema, urticaria, urticarial rash, cyanosis, grunting, stridor, tachypnoea, wheezing, tachycardia, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and tryptase. We included studies in adults of all ages in all healthcare settings. Effect sizes of prevalence were pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). To minimize heterogeneity, we performed sub-group analyses. Results Of the 1,734 papers that were identified, 26 articles were included in the systematic review (8 case report, 5 cohort, 4 case series, 2 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) and 14 articles (1 cohort, 2 case series, 1 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) were included in meta-analysis. Studies involving 26,337,421 vaccine recipients [Pfizer-BioNTech (n = 14,505,399) and Moderna (n = 11,831,488)] were analyzed. The overall pooled prevalence estimate of anaphylaxis to both vaccines was 5.0 (95% CI 2.9 to 7.2, I2 = 81%, p =  < 0.0001), while the overall pooled prevalence estimate of nonanaphylactic reactions to both vaccines was 53.9 (95% CI 0.0 to 116.1, I2 = 99%, p =  < 0.0001). Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech resulted in higher anaphylactic reactions compared to Moderna (8.0, 95% CI 0.0 to 11.3, I2 = 85% versus 2.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 5.7, I2 = 59%). However, lower incidence of nonanaphylactic reactions was associated with Pfizer-BioNTech compared to Moderna (43.9, 95% CI 0.0 to 131.9, I2 = 99% versus 63.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 151.8, I2 = 98%). The funnel plots for possible publication bias for the pooled effect sizes to determine the incidence of anaphylaxis and nonanaphylactic reactions associated with mRNA COVID-19 immunization based on mRNA vaccine type appeared asymmetrical on visual inspection, and Egger’s tests confirmed asymmetry by producing p values < 0.05. Across the included studies, the most commonly identified risk factors for anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were female sex and personal history of atopy. The key triggers to anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions identified in these studies included foods, medications, stinging insects or jellyfish, contrast media, cosmetics and detergents, household products, and latex. Previous history of anaphylaxis; and comorbidities such as asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic and contact eczema/dermatitis and psoriasis and cholinergic urticaria were also found to be important. Conclusion The prevalence of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-associated anaphylaxis is very low; and nonanaphylactic reactions occur at higher rate, however, cutaneous reactions are largely self-limited. Both anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions should not discourage vaccination.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document