scholarly journals Assessment of the Association of COPD and Asthma with In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with COVID-19. A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 2087
Author(s):  
Felix M. Reyes ◽  
Manuel Hache-Marliere ◽  
Dimitris Karamanis ◽  
Cesar G. Berto ◽  
Rodolfo Estrada ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Meta Regression Analysis ◽  
Related Mortality

Together, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma account for the most common non-infectious respiratory pathologies. Conflicting preliminary studies have shown varied effect for COPD and asthma as prognostic factors for mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of this study was to explore the association of COPD and asthma with in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 by systematically reviewing and synthesizing with a meta-analysis the available observational studies. MEDLINE, Scopus, and medRxiv databases were reviewed. A random-effects model meta-analysis was used, and I-square was utilized to assess for heterogeneity. In-hospital mortality was defined as the primary endpoint. Sensitivity and meta-regression analyses were performed. Thirty studies with 21,309 patients were included in this meta-analysis (1465 with COPD and 633 with asthma). Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with COPD had higher risk of death compared to those without COPD (OR: 2.29; 95% CI: 1.79–2.93; I2 59.6%). No significant difference in in-hospital mortality was seen in patients with and without asthma (OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.68–1.10; I2 0.0%). The likelihood of death was significantly higher in patients with COPD that were hospitalized with COVID-19 compared to patients without COPD. Further studies are needed to assess whether this association is independent or not. No significant difference was demonstrated in COVID-19-related mortality between patients with and without asthma.

scholarly journals Diabetes is associated with increased risk for in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis comprising 18,506 patients

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonidas Palaiodimos ◽  
Natalia Chamorro-Pareja ◽  
Dimitrios Karamanis ◽  
Weijia Li ◽  
Phaedon D. Zavras ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Patients With Diabetes ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Meta Regression Analysis

AbstractBackgroundInfectious diseases are more frequent and can be associated with worse outcomes in patients with diabetes. Our aim was to systematically review and synthesize with a meta-analysis the available observational studies reporting the effect of diabetes in mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.MethodsMedline, Embase, Google Scholar, and medRxiv databases were reviewed. A random-effect model meta-analysis was used and I-square was utilized to assess the heterogeneity. In-hospital mortality was defined as the endpoint. Sensitivity, subgroup, and meta-regression analyses were performed.Results18,506 patients were included in this meta-analysis (3,713 diabetics and 14,793 non-diabetics). Patients with diabetes were associated with a higher risk of death compared to patients without diabetes (OR: 1.65; 95% CI: 1.35-1.96; I2 77.4%). The heterogeneity was high. A study level meta-regression analysis was performed for all the important covariates and no significant interactions were found between the covariates and the outcome of mortality.ConclusionThis meta-analysis shows that that the likelihood of death is 65% higher in diabetic hospitalized patients with COVID-19 compared to non-diabetics. Further studies are needed to assess whether this association is independent or not, as well as to investigate to role of glucose control prior or during the disease.

scholarly journals Comparing the impact of different exercise interventions on fatigue in individuals with COPD: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 147997311989485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lok Sze Katrina Li ◽  
Stacey Butler ◽  
Roger Goldstein ◽  
Dina Brooks
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Interval Training ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Exercise Interventions ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Type Of Exercise ◽  
The Impact

To systematically review randomized controlled trials that compared the effectiveness of different types of exercise on the symptom of fatigue in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMcare, PsychINFO, and Cochrane library were searched from inception to October 2018. Studies were included if individuals with COPD were randomized into two or more physical exercise interventions that reported fatigue. Of the 395 full-texts reviewed, 17 studies were included. Fifteen studies reported the impact of exercise on health-related quality of life with fatigue as a subdomain. Reduction in fatigue was observed following endurance, resistance, or a combination of both exercises. There was no significant difference between continuous and interval training ( n = 3 studies, pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) = −0.17, 95% CI = −0.47, 0.12, p = 0.25) or between endurance and resistance training ( n = 3 studies, SMD = −0.35, 95% CI = −0.72, 0.01, p = 0.07) on fatigue in people with COPD. Fatigue reduction is not usually a primary outcome of exercise interventions, but it is frequently a secondary domain. The type of exercise did not influence the impact of exercise on fatigue, which was reduced in endurance, resistance, or a combination of both exercises, enabling clinicians to personalize training to match targeted outcomes.

scholarly journals Effect of Traditional Chinese Medicine Bufei Granule on Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Based on Existing Evidence

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Yihua Fan ◽  
Xinyan Wen ◽  
Qiang Zhang ◽  
Fangyuan Wang ◽  
Qing Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Significant Difference

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the effect of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) Bufei granule on stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We retrieved data from PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CNKI, Wanfang, and WeiPu (VIP) for studies focusing on whether the TCM Bufei granule would be effective in treating stable COPD. No language restriction and blinding were used. All trials involved were examined based on the standards of the Cochrane Handbook, and Review Manager 5.3 software was applied for analyzing data. We included four studies involving 599 patients with stable COPD. When compared to placebo treatment, TCM Bufei granule intervention exhibited improvement in the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.70; range, 0.50–0.91; I2 = 0%), forced vital capacity (FVC) (SMD = 0.43; range, 0.23–0.62; I2 = 0%), FEV1 percentage of predicted value (FEV1%) (SMD = 0.57; range, 0.38–0.76; I2 = 4%), and FEV1/FVC (SMD = 0.69; range, 0.50–0.87; I2 = 0%). There was a statistically significant difference in St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire scores between the TCM Bufei granule and placebo treatments (SMD = −1.29; range, −2.32 to −0.26, I2 = 97%). None of the studies reported any adverse events. Therefore, TCM Bufei granule intervention could help in improving the lung function and quality of life in patients with stable COPD.

Blood Eosinophils and Clinical Outcome of Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Respiration ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Yajie You ◽  
Guo chao Shi
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Numerous studies have shown the association between eosinophilia and clinical outcomes of patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). But the evidences are lack of consensus. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> The aim of this meta-analysis was to conduct a pooled analysis of outcome comparing eosinophilic (EOS) AECOPD and non-EOS AECOPD patients. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We included PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to 2020 to retrieve articles. Randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies about patients with and without EOS AECOPD in terms of in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, comorbidities, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), gender, and BMI were included preclinical studies, review articles, editorials, commentaries, conference abstracts, and book chapters were excluded. The methodologic assessment of studies was performed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochran scale. Comprehensive Rev Man 5 was used for the statistical analysis. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Twenty-one studies with 18,041 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were used in this meta-analysis. Comparing to the non-EOS group, those with EOS AECOPD patients had a lower risk for in-hospital mortality (odds ratio (OR) = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36–0.95, <i>p</i> = 0.03), shorter length of hospital stay (OR = −0.72, 95% CI −1.44 to −0.00, <i>p</i> = 0.05), better FEV1 (mean difference = 0.14, 95% CI 0.08–0.20, <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.00001), and a lower risk of arrhythmias (OR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.01–2.21, <i>p</i> = 0.04). In addition, the non-EOS group had a higher percentage of male (OR = 1.34, 95% CI 1.15–1.56, <i>p</i> = 0.0002) than EOS group. The rate of steroid use (OR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.47–1.42, <i>p</i> = 0.48) and BMI (mean difference = 0.43, 95% CI −0.18 to 1.05, <i>p</i> = 0.17] had no difference between 2 groups. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The results of our meta-analysis suggest that EOS AECOPD patients have a better clinical outcome than non-EOS AECOPD patients in terms of length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, FEV1, and risk of arrhythmias. In addition, the non-EOS AECOPD patients have higher percentage of male than EOS AECOPD patients.

scholarly journals Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients’ Acceptance in E-Health Clinical Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (10) ◽  
pp. 5230
Author(s):  
Saeed M. Alghamdi ◽  
Ahmed M. Al Rajah ◽  
Yousef S. Aldabayan ◽  
Abdulelah M. Aldhahir ◽  
Jaber S. Alqahtani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Dropout Rate ◽  
Dropout Rates ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Significant Difference

Introduction: Telehealth (TH) interventions with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) management were introduced in the literature more than 20 years ago with different labeling, but there was no summary for the overall acceptance and dropout rates as well as associated variables. Objective: This review aims to summarize the acceptance and dropout rates used in TH interventions and identify to what extent clinical settings, sociodemographic factors, and intervention factors might impact the overall acceptance and completion rates of TH interventions. Methods: We conducted a systematic search up to April 2021 on CINAHL, PubMed, MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane, Web of Sciences, and Embase to retrieve randomized and non-randomized control trials that provide TH interventions alone or accompanied with other interventions to individuals with COPD. Results: Twenty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the unweighted average of acceptance and dropout rates for all included studies were 80% and 19%, respectively. A meta-analysis on the pooled difference between the acceptance rates and dropout rates (weighted by the sample size) revealed a significant difference in acceptance and dropout rates among all TH interventions 51% (95% CI 49% to 52; p < 0.001) and 63% (95% CI 60% to 67; p < 0.001), respectively. Analysis revealed that acceptance and dropout rates can be impacted by trial-related, sociodemographic, and intervention-related variables. The most common reasons for dropouts were technical difficulties (33%), followed by complicated system (31%). Conclusions: Current TH COPD interventions have a pooled acceptance rate of 51%, but this is accompanied by a high dropout rate of 63%. Acceptance and dropout levels in TH clinical trials can be affected by sociodemographic and intervention-related factors. This knowledge enlightens designs for well-accepted future TH clinical trials. PROSPERO registration number CRD4201707854.

scholarly journals Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kollengode Ramanathan ◽  
Kiran Shekar ◽  
Ryan Ruiyang Ling ◽  
Ryan P. Barbaro ◽  
Suei Nee Wong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Ecmo Support ◽  
Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Venovenous Ecmo

Abstract Background There are several reports of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to guide clinical decision-making and future research. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and Scopus databases from 1 December 2019 to 10 January 2021 for observational studies or randomised clinical trials examining ECMO in adults with COVID-19 ARDS. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression, assessed risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist and rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Survival outcomes were presented as pooled proportions while continuous outcomes were presented as pooled means, both with corresponding 95% confidence intervals [CIs]. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were duration of ECMO therapy and mechanical ventilation, weaning rate from ECMO and complications during ECMO. Results We included twenty-two observational studies with 1896 patients in the meta-analysis. Venovenous ECMO was the predominant mode used (98.6%). The pooled in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients (22 studies, 1896 patients) supported with ECMO was 37.1% (95% CI 32.3–42.0%, high certainty). Pooled mortality in the venovenous ECMO group was 35.7% (95% CI 30.7–40.7%, high certainty). Meta-regression found that age and ECMO duration were associated with increased mortality. Duration of ECMO support (18 studies, 1844 patients) was 15.1 days (95% CI 13.4–18.7). Weaning from ECMO (17 studies, 1412 patients) was accomplished in 67.6% (95% CI 50.5–82.7%) of patients. There were a total of 1583 ECMO complications reported (18 studies, 1721 patients) and renal complications were the most common. Conclusion The majority of patients received venovenous ECMO support for COVID-19-related ARDS. In-hospital mortality in patients receiving ECMO support for COVID-19 was 37.1% during the first year of the pandemic, similar to those with non-COVID-19-related ARDS. Increasing age was a risk factor for death. Venovenous ECMO appears to be an effective intervention in selected patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. PROSPERO CRD42020192627.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document