The Risk of COVID-19 Related Hospitalsation, Intensive Care Unit Admission and Mortality in People With Underlying Asthma or COPD: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Several underlying diseases have been associated with unfavorable COVID-19 related outcomes including asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), however few studies have reported risks that are adjusted for confounding variables. This study aimed to examine the adjusted risk of COVID-19 related hospitalsation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality in patients with vs. without asthma or COPD.Methods: A systematic review of major databases was undertaken for studies published between 1/12/2019 and 19/4/2021. Studies reporting the adjusted (for one or more confounder) risks of either hospitalsation, ICU admission, or mortality in asthmatics or COPD patients (control group = no asthma or no COPD) were identified. Risk of bias was determined via the QUIPS tool. A random effect meta-analysis was undertaken.Findings: 37 studies were eligible for analysis, with a total of 1,678,992 participants. The pooled ORs of COVID-19 hospitalsation in subjects with asthma and COPD was 0.91 (95% CI 0.76–1.09) and 1.37 (95% CI 1.29–1.46), respectively. For ICU admission, OR in subjects with asthma and COPD was 0.89 (95% CI 0.74–1.07) and 1.22 (95% CI 1.04–1.42), respectively. For mortality, ORs were 0.88 (95% CI 0.77–1.01) and 1.25 (95% CI 1.08–1.34) for asthma and COPD, respectively. Further, the pooled risk of mortality as measured via Cox regression was 0.93 (95% CI 0.87–1.00) for asthma and 1.30 (95% CI 1.17–1.44) for COPD. All of these findings were of a moderate level of certainty.Interpretation: COPD was significantly associated with COVID-19 related hospital admission, ICU admission, and mortality. Asthma was not associated with negative COVID-19 related health outcomes. Individuals with COPD should take precautions to limit the risk of COVID-19 exposure to negate these potential outcomes. Limitations include differing population types and adjustment for differing cofounding variables. Practitioners should note these findings when dealing with patients with these comorbidities.Review Protocol Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Download Full-text

Cardiovascular Diseases and COVID-19 Mortality and Intensive Care Unit Admission: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

10.1101/2020.04.12.20062869 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Amir Shamshirian ◽

Keyvan Heydari ◽

Reza Alizadeh-Navaei ◽

Mahmood Moosazadeh ◽

Saeed Abrotan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Heart Failure ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Cardiovascular Disease ◽

Intensive Care Unit ◽

Intensive Care ◽

Cardiovascular Diseases ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cardiac Injury ◽

Icu Admission ◽

The World

AbstractImportanceOn 11th March, the World Health Organization declared a pandemic of COVID-19. There are over 1 million cases around the world with this disease and it continues to raise. Studies on COVID-19 patients have reported high rate of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among them and patients with CVD had higher mortality rate.ObjectivesSince there were controversies between different studies about CVD burden in COVID-19 patients, we aimed to study cardiovascular disease burden among COVID-19 patients using a systematic review and meta-analysis.Data SourcesWe have systematically searched databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science as well as medRxiv pre-print database. Hand searched was also conducted in journal websites and Google Scholar.Study SelectionStudies reported cardiovascular disease among hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients with mortality or ICU admission (primary outcomes) were included into meta-analysis. In addition, all of studies which reported any cardiovascular implication were included for descriptive meta-analysis. Cohort studies, case-control, cross-sectional, case-cohort and case series studies included into the study. Finally, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria for primary outcome and 59 studies for descriptive outcome.Data Extraction and SynthesisTwo investigators have independently evaluated quality of publications and extracted data from included papers. In case of disagreement a supervisor solved the issue and made the final decision. Quality assessment of studies was done using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tool. Heterogeneity was assessed using I-squared test and in case of high heterogeneity (>%50) random effect model was used.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMeta-analyses were carried out for Odds Ratio (OR) of mortality and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission for different CVDs and Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) was calculated for Cardiac Troponin I. We have also performed a descriptive meta-analysis on different CVDs.ResultsSixteen papers including 3473 patients entered into meta-analysis for ICU admission and mortality outcome and fifty-nine papers including 9509 patients for descriptive outcomes. Results of meta-analysis indicated that acute cardiac injury, (OR: 15.94, 95% CI 2.31-110.14), hypertension (OR: 1.92, 95% CI 1.92-2.74), heart Failure (OR: 11.73, 95% CI 5.17-26.60), other cardiovascular disease (OR: 1.95, 95% CI 1.17-3.24) and overall CVDs (OR: 3.37, 95% CI 2.06-5.52) were significantly associated with mortality in COVID-19 patients. Arrhythmia (OR: 22.17, 95%CI 4.47-110.04), acute cardiac injury (OR: 19.83, 95%CI 7.85-50.13), coronary heart disease (OR: 4.19, 95%CI 1.27-13.80), cardiovascular disease (OR: 4.17, 95%CI 2.52-6.88) and hypertension (OR: 2.69, 95%CI 1.55-4.67) were also significantly associated with ICU admission in COVID-19 patients.ConclusionOur findings showed a high burden of CVDs among COVID-19 patients which was significantly associated with mortality and ICU admission. Proper management of CVD patients with COVID-19 and monitoring COVID-19 patients for acute cardiac conditions is highly recommended to prevent mortality and critical situations.Key PointsQuestionAre cardiovascular disease associated with mortality and Intensive Care Unit admission (ICU) of COVID-19 patients?FindingsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, acute cardiac injury, hypertension, heart failure and overall cardiovascular diseases were significantly associated with mortality in COVID-19 patients. Arrhythmia, coronary heart disease, hypertension, acute cardiac injury and other cardiovascular disease were significantly associated with ICU admission of COVID-19 patients.MeaningCardiovascular diseases have significant role in mortality and disease severity of COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 patients need to be carefully monitored for cardiovascular diseases and managed properly in case of acute cardiac conditions.

Download Full-text

The Outcome of Hydroxychloroquine in Patients Treated for COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Canadian Respiratory Journal ◽

10.1155/2020/4312519 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 2020 ◽

pp. 1-16

Author(s):

Teshale Ayele Mega ◽

Temesgen Mulugeta Feyissa ◽

Dula Dessalegn Bosho ◽

Kabaye Kumela Goro ◽

Getandale Zeleke Negera

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Intensive Care Unit ◽

Intensive Care ◽

Adverse Effects ◽

Disease Progression ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Control Group ◽

Qtc Prolongation ◽

Absolute Increase

Background. The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) resulted in an unprecedented public health challenge worldwide. Despite urgent and extensive global efforts, the existing evidence is inconclusive regarding the medications used for the treatment of COVID-19. Purpose. To generate an up-to-date evidence for the clinical safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with or without azithromycin (AZ) among patients treated for COVID-19. Data Source. PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, LITCOVID, Web of Science, SCOPUS, BioRxiv, Embase, MedRxiv, and Wiley online library were searched from 2019/12/30 to 2020/05/23. Study Selection. Three investigators assessed the quality of the studies. Data Extraction. Data about study characteristics, effect estimates, and the quality of the studies were extracted by two independent reviewers and cross-checked by the third reviewer. Data Synthesis. The data of 6,782 (HCQ group, 3623; HCQ + AZ group, 1,020; control group, 2139) participants were included. HCQ was compared with standard care for virologic efficacy, disease progression, mortality, and adverse effects. HCQ was also compared with HCQ + AZ for QTc prolongation, admission to the intensive care unit, and mortality. The study found HCQ did not alter the rate of virologic cure (OR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.39–1.56) and the risk of mortality (OR = 1.26; 95% CI: 0.66–2.39). The pooled prevalence for mortality was 5.8% (95% CI: 0.9%–10.8%). Moreover, HCQ did not impact disease progression (OR = 0.9; 95% CI: 0.36–2.29) but resulted in a higher risk of adverse effects (OR = 2.35; 95% CI: 1.15–4.8). HCQ was also compared against HCQ + AZ, and no difference was observed in QTc prolongation above 500 ms (OR = 1.11; 95% CI: 0.54–2.28), admission to the intensive care unit (OR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.52–1.63), and mortality (OR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.55–1.43). However, in the analysis of single-arm studies, about 11.2% (95% CI: 7.0%–15.5%) of patients have developed an absolute increase of QTc greater than 500 ms, and 4.1% (95% CI: 1.1%–7.1%) of patients discontinued their medication. Conclusion. This meta-analysis and systematic review, which included a limited number of poorly designed studies of patients with COVID-19, revealed HCQ is intolerable, unsafe, and not efficacious. Similarly, HCQ + AZ combination was not different from HCQ alone in curbing mortality and ICU admission.

Download Full-text

Quantification of the association between predisposing health conditions, demographic, and behavioural factors with hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission, and death from COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

10.1101/2020.07.30.20165050 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Nathalie Veronica Fernandez Villalobos ◽

Joerdis Jennifer Ott ◽

Carolina Judith Klett-Tammen ◽

Annabelle Bockey ◽

Patrizio Vanella ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Intensive Care Unit ◽

Intensive Care ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Health Conditions ◽

Targeted Prevention ◽

Icu Admission ◽

Meta Regression ◽

Behavioural Factors

Background Comprehensive evidence synthesis on the associations between comorbidities and behavioural factors with hospitalisation, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, and death due to COVID-19 is lacking leading to inconsistent national and international recommendations on who should be targeted for non-pharmaceutical interventions and vaccination strategies. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on studies and publicly available data to quantify the association between predisposing health conditions, demographics, and behavioural factors with hospitalisation, ICU admission, and death from COVID-19. We provided ranges of reported and calculated effect estimates and pooled relative risks derived from a meta-analysis and meta-regression. Results 75 studies were included into qualitative and 74 into quantitative synthesis, with study populations ranging from 19 - 44,672 COVID-19 cases. The risk of dying from COVID-19 was significantly associated with cerebrovascular [pooled RR 2.7 (95% CI 1.7-4.1)] and cardiovascular [RR 3.2 (CI 2.3-4.5)] diseases, hypertension [RR 2.6 (CI 2.0-3.4)], and renal disease [RR 2.5 (CI 1.8-3.4)]. Health care workers had lower risk for death and severe outcomes of disease (RR 0.1 (CI 0.1-0.3). Our meta-regression showed a decrease of the effect of some comorbidities on severity of disease with higher median age of study populations. Associations between comorbidities and hospitalisation and ICU admission were less strong than for death. Conclusions We obtained robust estimates on the magnitude of risk for COVID-19 hospitalisation, ICU admission, and death associated with comorbidities, demographic, and behavioural risk factors. We identified and confirmed population groups that are vulnerable and that require targeted prevention approaches.

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of The confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU) and intensive care delirium screening checklist (ICDSC) for the diagnosis of delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.717953729.793459343 ◽

2012 ◽

Author(s):

Mark Wainwright

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Intensive Care Unit ◽

Intensive Care ◽

Clinical Studies ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Confusion Assessment Method ◽

Assessment Method ◽

Confusion Assessment

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Safety of Patient Mobilization and Rehabilitation in the Intensive Care Unit. Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.727337857.793558842 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Nicola Latronico

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Intensive Care Unit ◽

Intensive Care ◽

Meta Analysis

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Risk factors for intensive care unit-acquired weakness: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.733323784.793558835 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Nicola Latronico

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Intensive Care Unit ◽

Intensive Care ◽

Meta Analysis

Download Full-text

Sofosbuvir with daclatasvir and the outcomes of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis with GRADE assessment

Postgraduate Medical Journal ◽

10.1136/postgradmedj-2021-140287 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. postgradmedj-2021-140287

Author(s):

Ahmad Fariz Malvi Zamzam Zein ◽

Catur Setiya Sulistiyana ◽

Wilson Matthew Raffaello ◽

Arief Wibowo ◽

Raymond Pranata

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Absolute Risk ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Control Group ◽

Reduce Mortality Rate ◽

Icu Admission ◽

Clinical Recovery

PurposeThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (SOF/DCV) on mortality, the need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and clinical recovery in patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search through the PubMed, Scopus and Embase from the inception of databases until 6 April 2021. The intervention group was SOF/DCV, and the control group was standard of care. The primary outcome was mortality, defined as clinically validated death. The secondary outcomes were (1) the need for ICU admission or IMV and (2) clinical recovery. The pooled effect estimates were reported as risk ratios (RRs).ResultsThere were four studies with a total of 231 patients in this meta-analysis. Three studies were randomised controlled trial, and one study was non-randomised. SOF/DCV was associated with lower mortality (RR: 0.31 (0.12, 0.78); p=0.013; I2: 0%) and reduced need for ICU admission or IMV (RR: 0.35 (0.18, 0.69); p=0.002; I2: 0%). Clinical recovery was achieved more frequently in the SOF/DCV (RR: 1.20 (1.04, 1.37); p=0.011; I2: 21.1%). There was a moderate certainty of evidence for mortality and need for ICU/IMV outcome, and a low certainty of evidence for clinical recovery. The absolute risk reductions were 140 fewer per 1000 for mortality and 186 fewer per 1000 for the need for ICU/IMV. The increase in clinical recovery was 146 more per 1000.ConclusionSOF/DCV may reduce mortality rate and need for ICU/IMV in patients with COVID-19 while increasing the chance for clinical recovery.Protocol registrationPROSPERO: CRD42021247510.

Download Full-text

Safety and efficacy of routine diagnostic test reduction interventions in patients admitted to the intensive care unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Anaesthesia and Intensive Care ◽

10.1177/0310057x20962113 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 49 (1) ◽

pp. 23-34

Author(s):

Katherine P Hooper ◽

Matthew H Anstey ◽

Edward Litton

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Intensive Care Unit ◽

Intensive Care ◽

Hospital Mortality ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Diagnostic Testing ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Safety And Efficacy ◽

Significant Difference

Reducing unnecessary routine diagnostic testing has been identified as a strategy to curb wasteful healthcare. However, the safety and efficacy of targeted diagnostic testing strategies are uncertain. The aim of this study was to systematically review interventions designed to reduce pathology and chest radiograph testing in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). A predetermined protocol and search strategy included OVID MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until 20 November 2019. Eligible publications included interventional studies of patients admitted to an ICU. There were no language restrictions. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and test reduction. Key secondary outcomes included ICU mortality, length of stay, costs and adverse events. This systematic review analysed 26 studies (with more than 44,00 patients) reporting an intervention to reduce one or more diagnostic tests. No studies were at low risk of bias. In-hospital mortality, reported in seven studies, was not significantly different in the post-implementation group (829 of 9815 patients, 8.4%) compared with the pre-intervention group (1007 of 9848 patients, 10.2%), (relative risk 0.89, 95% confidence intervals 0.79 to 1.01, P = 0.06, I2 39%). Of the 18 studies reporting a difference in testing rates, all reported a decrease associated with targeted testing (range 6%–72%), with 14 (82%) studies reporting >20% reduction in one or more tests. Studies of ICU targeted test interventions are generally of low quality. The majority report substantial decreases in testing without evidence of a significant difference in hospital mortality.

Download Full-text