Correlations between Morphine Use and Adverse Outcomes in Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction with Acute Heart Failure: a retrospective study 

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
shaohong dong ◽  
Yaowang Lin ◽  
Jie Yuan ◽  
Yong Zhu ◽  
Huadong Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Acute Heart Failure ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Morphine Group ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Intravenous Morphine

Abstract Background: Studies examining the safety of intravenous morphine use for acute heart failure (AHF) have reported inconsistent results. Objective: The comprehensive meta-analysis assessed and compared the clinical outcomes of intravenous morphine use in AHF.Methods: We formally searched electronic databases before June 2020 to identify potential studies. All clinical trials were eligible for inclusion if they compared intravenous morphine or not in patients with AHF.Results: 3 propensity-matched cohorts and 2 retrospective analysis with a total of 151867 patients met the inclusion criteria were included in our meta-analysis (intravenous morphine group=22072, without morphine group=127895). The use of intravenous morphine was associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality [over all odds ratio (OR)=5.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.20 to 5.79, p<0.001, I2=96.7%; subgroup analysis: OR=1.60, 95%CI 1.27-2.02, I2=0%; OR=1.53, 95%CI 1.20-1.96, I2=7%] and invasive mechanical ventilation (OR=6.08, 95% CI 5.79 to 6.40, p<0.001, I2=94.2%; subgroup analysis: OR=1.74, 95%CI 1.21-2.49, I2=62.3%). However, there was no significant association of longtime time mortality with intravenous morphine (Hazards ratio =1.17; 95% CI 0.99–1.36, p=0.14; I2 32%).Conclusion: In AHF patients, intravenous morphine administration for relieving dyspnea was associated with in-hospital mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation, but not for longtime mortality.

scholarly journals Diabetes and Overweight/Obesity Are Independent, Nonadditive Risk Factors for In-Hospital Severity of COVID-19: An International, Multicenter Retrospective Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle K. Longmore ◽  
Jessica E. Miller ◽  
Siroon Bekkering ◽  
Christoph Saner ◽  
Edin Mifsud ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Site Specific ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Obesity And Diabetes ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation

<a><b>OBJECTIVE</b><b> </b></a> <p>Obesity is an established risk factor for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) but the contribution of overweight and/or diabetes remain unclear. In a multi-center international study, we investigated if overweight, obesity and diabetes were independently associated with COVID-19 severity, and whether the body mass index (BMI)-associated risk was increased among those with diabetes. </p> <p> </p> <p><b>RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODS </b><b></b></p> <p>We retrospectively extracted data from health care records and regional databases of hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 from 18 sites in 11 countries. We used standardized definitions and analyses to generate site-specific estimates, modelling the odds of each outcome (supplemental oxygen/non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital mortality) by BMI category (reference, overweight, obese) adjusting for age, sex, and pre-specified co-morbidities. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients with pre-existing diabetes. Site-specific estimates were combined in a meta-analysis. </p> <p><u> </u></p> <p><b>RESULTS</b><b></b></p> <p>Among 7244 patients (65.6% overweight/obese), those with overweight were more likely to require oxygen/non-invasive ventilation (random effects adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.44 [95% CI 1.15-1.80]) and invasive mechanical ventilation (aOR 1.22 [CI 1.03-1.46]). There was no association between overweight and in-hospital mortality (aOR 0.88 [CI 0.74-1.04]). Similar effects were observed in patients with obesity or diabetes. In the subgroup analysis, the aOR for any outcome was not additionally increased in those with diabetes and overweight or obesity. </p> <p> </p> <p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b><b></b></p> <p>In adults hospitalized with COVID-19, overweight as well as obesity and diabetes were associated with increased odds of respiratory support but not mortality. In patients with diabetes, the odds of severe COVID-19 were not increased above the BMI-associated risk. </p>

scholarly journals Diabetes and Overweight/Obesity Are Independent, Nonadditive Risk Factors for In-Hospital Severity of COVID-19: An International, Multicenter Retrospective Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle K. Longmore ◽  
Jessica E. Miller ◽  
Siroon Bekkering ◽  
Christoph Saner ◽  
Edin Mifsud ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Site Specific ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Obesity And Diabetes ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation

<a><b>OBJECTIVE</b><b> </b></a> <p>Obesity is an established risk factor for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) but the contribution of overweight and/or diabetes remain unclear. In a multi-center international study, we investigated if overweight, obesity and diabetes were independently associated with COVID-19 severity, and whether the body mass index (BMI)-associated risk was increased among those with diabetes. </p> <p> </p> <p><b>RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODS </b><b></b></p> <p>We retrospectively extracted data from health care records and regional databases of hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 from 18 sites in 11 countries. We used standardized definitions and analyses to generate site-specific estimates, modelling the odds of each outcome (supplemental oxygen/non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital mortality) by BMI category (reference, overweight, obese) adjusting for age, sex, and pre-specified co-morbidities. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients with pre-existing diabetes. Site-specific estimates were combined in a meta-analysis. </p> <p><u> </u></p> <p><b>RESULTS</b><b></b></p> <p>Among 7244 patients (65.6% overweight/obese), those with overweight were more likely to require oxygen/non-invasive ventilation (random effects adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.44 [95% CI 1.15-1.80]) and invasive mechanical ventilation (aOR 1.22 [CI 1.03-1.46]). There was no association between overweight and in-hospital mortality (aOR 0.88 [CI 0.74-1.04]). Similar effects were observed in patients with obesity or diabetes. In the subgroup analysis, the aOR for any outcome was not additionally increased in those with diabetes and overweight or obesity. </p> <p> </p> <p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b><b></b></p> <p>In adults hospitalized with COVID-19, overweight as well as obesity and diabetes were associated with increased odds of respiratory support but not mortality. In patients with diabetes, the odds of severe COVID-19 were not increased above the BMI-associated risk. </p>

Abstract 17292: Does Morbid Obesity Worsens Outcomes in COVID-19?

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sohaib Roomi ◽  
Waqas Ullah ◽  
Nayab Nadeem ◽  
Rehan Saeed ◽  
Donald Haas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Morbid Obesity ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis ◽  
Odds Ratios ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mean Differences

Introduction: Given the high prevalence of obesity around the globe, patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at an increased risk of devastating complications. Hypothesis: We hypothesize that morbid obesity is independently associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality, upgrade to intensive care unit, invasive mechanical ventilation(IVM), and acute renal failure necessitating dialysis. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed to determine the association of basal metabolic index (BMI) with the above-mentioned outcomes. Independent t-test and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to calculate mean differences and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI), respectively. Results: A total of 176 patients with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis were included. The mean age was 62.2 years, with 51% of male patients. The mean BMI for non-surviving patients was significantly higher compared to patients surviving on the 7th day of hospitalization (35 vs. 30 kg/m2, p=0.022) and patients with a higher BMI had higher in-hospital mortality (21% vs. 9%, OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.3-8.2, p=0.01) compared to patients with a normal BMI. Similarly, patients requiring IMV had a higher BMI (33 vs. 29, p=0.002) compared to non-intubated patients. aOR of patients needing IMV (56% vs. 28%, OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.6-7.0, p=0.002) and upgrade to ICU (46% vs. 28%, OR 2.2, 1.07-4.6, p=0.04) were significantly higher compared to patients with a lower BMI. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the need for dialysis (5% vs. 13%, OR 3.8, 13% vs. 4%, 1.1-14.1, p=0.07). Adjusted odds ratios controlled for baseline comorbidities and medications mirrored the overall results, except for the need to upgrade to ICU. Conclusions: In patients with confirmed COVID-19, morbid obesity serves as an independent risk factor of high in-hospital mortality and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation.

scholarly journals The isolated effect of age on the risk of COVID-19 severe outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karla Romero Starke ◽  
David Reissig ◽  
Gabriela Petereit-Haack ◽  
Stefanie Schmauder ◽  
Albert Nienhaus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Disease Severity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Continuous Increase ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Protection Strategies ◽  
Case Mortality ◽  
Effect Of Age

Introduction Increased age has been reported to be a factor for COVID-19 severe outcomes. However, many studies do not consider the age-dependency of comorbidities, which influence the course of disease. Protection strategies often target individuals after a certain age, which may not necessarily be evidence-based. The aim of this review was to quantify the isolated effect of age on hospitalization, admission to ICU, mechanical ventilation, and death. Methods This review was based on an umbrella review, in which Pubmed, Embase, and pre-print databases were searched on December 10, 2020 for relevant reviews on COVID-19 disease severity. Two independent reviewers evaluated the primary studies using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results were extracted, and each study was assessed for risk of bias. The isolated effect of age was estimated by meta-analysis, and the quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results Seventy studies met our inclusion criteria (case mortality n=14, in-hospital mortality n=44, hospitalization n=16, admission to ICU n=12, mechanical ventilation n=7). The risk of in-hospital and case mortality increased per age year by 5.7% and 7.4%, respectively (Effect Size (ES) in-hospital mortality=1.057, 95% CI:1.038-1.054; ES case mortality= 1.074, 95% CI:1.061-1.087), while the risk of hospitalization increased by 3.4% per age year (ES=1.034, 95% CI:1.021-1.048). No increased risk was observed for ICU admission and intubation by age year. There was no evidence of a specific age threshold at which the risk accelerates considerably. The confidence of evidence was high for mortality and hospitalization. Conclusions Our results show a best-possible quantification of the increase in COVID-19 disease severity due to age. Rather than implementing age thresholds, prevention programs should consider the continuous increase in risk. There is a need for continuous, high-quality research and living reviews to evaluate the evidence throughout the pandemic, as results may change due to varying circumstances.

scholarly journals Higher Versus Lower Positive End-Expiratory Pressure in Patients Without Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tommaso Pettenuzzo ◽  
Annalisa Boscolo ◽  
Alessandro De Cassai ◽  
Nicolò Sella ◽  
Francesco Zarantonello ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Positive End Expiratory Pressure ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Duration Of Ventilation

Abstract Background: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the association of higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), as opposed to lower PEEP, with hospital mortality in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation for reasons other than acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods: We performed an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception until December 18, 2020 with no language restrictions. In addition, a research-in-progress database and grey literature were searched. Results: We identified 22 RCTs (2225 patients) comparing higher PEEP (1007 patients) with lower PEEP (991 patients). No statistically significant association between higher PEEP and hospital mortality was observed (risk ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.89-1.16; I2 = 0%, p = 0.62; low certainty of evidence). Among secondary outcomes, higher PEEP was associated with better oxygenation, higher respiratory system compliance, and lower risk of hypoxemia and ARDS occurrence. Furthermore, barotrauma, hypotension, duration of ventilation, lengths of stay, and ICU mortality were similar between the two groups. Conclusions: In our meta-analysis of RCTs, higher PEEP, compared with lower PEEP, was not associated with mortality or duration of ventilation in patients without ARDS receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, despite being associated with improved oxygenation and lower occurrence of ARDS.

scholarly journals Intravenous morphine use in acute heart failure increases adverse outcomes: a meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 865
Author(s):  
Yaowang Lin ◽  
Yang Chen ◽  
Jie Yuan ◽  
Xinli Pang ◽  
Huadong Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Acute Heart Failure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Intravenous Morphine

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.

scholarly journals Impact of acute kidney injury on in-hospital outcomes among patients hospitalized with acute heart failure: a propensity score matched analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
S Shetty ◽  
H Malik ◽  
A Abbas ◽  
Y Ying ◽  
W Aronow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Acute Kidney Injury ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Acute Heart Failure ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Matched Cohort ◽  
Hospital Outcomes ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Acute kidney injury (AKI) is frequently present in patients admitted for acute heart failure (AHF). Several studies have evaluated the mortality risk and have concluded poor prognosis in any patient with AKI admitted for AHF. For the most part, the additional morbidity and mortality burden in AHF patients with AKI has been attributed to the concomitant comorbidities, and/or interventions. Purpose We sought to determine the impact of acute kidney injury (AKI) on in-hospital outcomes in patients presenting with acute heart failure (AHF). We identified isolated AKI patients after excluding other concomitant diagnoses and procedures, which may contribute to an increased risk of mortality and morbidity. Methods Data from the National Inpatient Sample (2012- 14) were used to identify patients with the principal diagnosis of AHF and the concomitant secondary diagnosis of AKI. Propensity score matching was performed on 30 baseline variables to identify a matched cohort. The outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. We further evaluated in-hospital procedures and complications. Results Of 1,470,450 patients admitted with AHF, 24.3% had AKI. After propensity matching a matched cohort of 356,940 patients was identified. In this matched group, the AKI group had significantly higher in-hospital mortality (3.8% vs 1.7%, p&lt;0.001). Complications such as sepsis and cardiac arrest were higher in the AKI group. Similarly, in-hospital procedures including CABG, mechanical ventilation and IABP were performed more in the AKI group. AHF patients with AKI had longer in-hospital stay of ∼1.7 days. Conclusions In a propensity score-matched cohort of AHF with and without AKI, the risk of in-hospital mortality was &gt;2-fold in the AKI group. Healthcare utilization and burden of complications were higher in the AKI group. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

scholarly journals Patient–ventilator asynchrony, impact on clinical outcomes and effectiveness of interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michihito Kyo ◽  
Tatsutoshi Shimatani ◽  
Koji Hosokawa ◽  
Shunsuke Taito ◽  
Yuki Kataoka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Closed Loop ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Icu Mortality ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Patient–ventilator asynchrony (PVA) is a common problem in patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) in the intensive care unit (ICU), and may accelerate lung injury and diaphragm mis-contraction. The impact of PVA on clinical outcomes has not been systematically evaluated. Effective interventions (except for closed-loop ventilation) for reducing PVA are not well established. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the impact of PVA on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing MV (Part A) and the effectiveness of interventions for patients undergoing MV except for closed-loop ventilation (Part B). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO-ICTRP until August 2020. In Part A, we defined asynchrony index (AI) ≥ 10 or ineffective triggering index (ITI) ≥ 10 as high PVA. We compared patients having high PVA with those having low PVA. Results Eight studies in Part A and eight trials in Part B fulfilled the eligibility criteria. In Part A, five studies were related to the AI and three studies were related to the ITI. High PVA may be associated with longer duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference, 5.16 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.38 to 7.94; n = 8; certainty of evidence [CoE], low), higher ICU mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.73; 95% CI 1.76 to 4.24; n = 6; CoE, low), and higher hospital mortality (OR, 1.94; 95% CI 1.14 to 3.30; n = 5; CoE, low). In Part B, interventions involving MV mode, tidal volume, and pressure-support level were associated with reduced PVA. Sedation protocol, sedation depth, and sedation with dexmedetomidine rather than propofol were also associated with reduced PVA. Conclusions PVA may be associated with longer MV duration, higher ICU mortality, and higher hospital mortality. Physicians may consider monitoring PVA and adjusting ventilator settings and sedatives to reduce PVA. Further studies with adjustment for confounding factors are warranted to determine the impact of PVA on clinical outcomes. Trial registration protocols.io (URL: https://www.protocols.io/view/the-impact-of-patient-ventilator-asynchrony-in-adu-bsqtndwn, 08/27/2020).

scholarly journals The isolated effect of age on the risk of COVID-19 severe outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
pp. e006434
Author(s):  
Karla Romero Starke ◽  
David Reissig ◽  
Gabriela Petereit-Haack ◽  
Stefanie Schmauder ◽  
Albert Nienhaus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Disease Severity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Continuous Increase ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Case Mortality ◽  
Effect Of Age

IntroductionIncreased age has been reported to be a factor for COVID-19 severe outcomes. However, many studies do not consider the age dependency of comorbidities, which influence the course of disease. Protection strategies often target individuals after a certain age, which may not necessarily be evidence based. The aim of this review was to quantify the isolated effect of age on hospitalisation, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation and death.MethodsThis review was based on an umbrella review, in which Pubmed, Embase and preprint databases were searched on 10 December 2020, for relevant reviews on COVID-19 disease severity. Two independent reviewers evaluated the primary studies using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results were extracted, and each study was assessed for risk of bias. The isolated effect of age was estimated by meta-analysis, and the quality of evidence was assessed using Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.ResultsSeventy studies met our inclusion criteria (case mortality: n=14, in-hospital mortality: n=44, hospitalisation: n=16, admission to ICU: n=12, mechanical ventilation: n=7). The risk of in-hospital and case mortality increased per age year by 5.7% and 7.4%, respectively (effect size (ES) in-hospital mortality=1.057, 95% CI 1.038 to 1.054; ES case mortality=1.074, 95% CI 1.061 to 1.087), while the risk of hospitalisation increased by 3.4% per age year (ES=1.034, 95% CI 1.021 to 1.048). No increased risk was observed for ICU admission and intubation by age year. There was no evidence of a specific age threshold at which the risk accelerates considerably. The confidence of evidence was high for mortality and hospitalisation.ConclusionsOur results show a best-possible quantification of the increase in COVID-19 disease severity due to age. Rather than implementing age thresholds, prevention programmes should consider the continuous increase in risk. There is a need for continuous, high-quality research and ‘living’ reviews to evaluate the evidence throughout the pandemic, as results may change due to varying circumstances.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document