The safety of digestive tract cancer surgery during COVID-19: A living systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wang QX
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10027963 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The safety of digestive tract cancer surgery during COVID-19: A living systematic review and meta-analysis.
Wang Qiu-Xiang QX Wang Juan J Wu Rui-Ke RK Li Yi-Lin YL Yao Cheng-Jiao CJ Xie Feng-Jiao FJ Xiong Qin Q Feng Pei-Min PM
Asian journal of surgery 20230321 10
Surgery is the primary curative treatment of solid cancers. However, its safety has been compromised by the outbreak of COVID-19. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the safety of digestive tract cancer surgery in the context of COVID-19. We used the Review Manager software (v.5.4) and Stata software (version 16.0) for meta-analysis and statistical analysis. Sixteen retrospective studies involving 17,077 patients met the inclusion criteria. The data indicates that performing digestive tract c ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPregnant persons are susceptible to significant complications following COVID-19, even death. However, worldwide COVID-19 vaccination coverage during pregnancy remains suboptimal.ObjectiveThis study assessed the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines administered to pregnant persons and shared this evidence via an interactive online website.MethodsWe followed Cochrane methods to conduct this living systematic review. We included studies assessing the effects of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant persons. We conducted searches every other week for studies until October 2023, without restrictions on language or publication status, in ten databases, guidelines, preprint servers, and COVID-19 websites. The reference lists of eligible studies were hand searched to identify additional relevant studies. Pairs of review authors independently selected eligible studies using the web-based software COVIDENCE. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by pairs of authors. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We performed random-effects meta-analyses of adjusted relative effects for relevant confounders of comparative studies and proportional meta-analyses to summarize frequencies from one-sample studies using R statistical software. We present the GRADE certainty of evidence from comparative studies. Findings are available on an interactive living systematic review webpage, including an updated evidence map and real-time meta-analyses customizable by subgroups and filters.ResultsWe included 177 studies involving 638,791 participants from 41 countries. Among the 11 types of COVID-19 vaccines identified, the most frequently used platforms were mRNA (154 studies), viral vector (51), and inactivated virus vaccines (17). Low to very low-certainty evidence suggests that vaccination may result in minimal to no important differences compared to no vaccination in all assessed maternal and infant safety outcomes from 26 fewer to 17 more events per 1000 pregnant persons, and 13 fewer to 9 more events per 1000 neonates, respectively. We found statistically significant reductions in emergency cesarean deliveries (9%) with mRNA vaccines, and in stillbirth (75-83%) with mRNA/viral vector vaccines. Low to very low-certainty evidence suggests that vaccination during pregnancy with mRNA vaccines may reduce severe cases or hospitalizations in pregnant persons with COVID-19 (72%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 42-86), symptomatic COVID-19 (78%; 95% CI 21-94), and virologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (82%; 95% CI 39-95). Reductions were lower with other vaccine types and during Omicron variant dominance than Alpha and Delta dominance. Infants also presented with fewer severe cases or hospitalizations due to COVID-19 and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (64%; 95% CI 37-80 and 66%; 95% CI 37-81, respectively).ConclusionsWe found a large body of evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. While the certainty of evidence is not high, it stands as the most reliable option available, given the current absence of pregnant individuals in clinical trials. Results are shared in near real time in an accessible and interactive format for scientists, decision makers, clinicians, and the general public. This living systematic review highlights the relevance of continuous vaccine safety and effectiveness monitoring, particularly in at-risk populations for COVID-19 impact such as pregnant persons, during the introduction of new vaccines.Clinical trial registrationPROSPERO: CRD42021281290.
| S-EPMC11399161 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has placed unprecedented pressure on the healthcare systems. This study evaluated the safety of colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD 42022327968). Relevant articles were systematically searched in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. The postoperative complications, anastomotic leakage, postoperative mortality, 30-day readmission, tumor stage, total hospitalization, postoperative hospitalization, preoperative waiting, operation time, and hospitalization in the intensive care unit (ICU) were compared between the pre-pandemic and during the COVID-19 pandemic periods.ResultsAmong the identified 561 articles, 12 met the inclusion criteria. The data indicated that preoperative waiting time related to CRC surgery was higher during the COVID-19 pandemic (MD, 0.99; 95%CI, 0.71-1.28; p < 0.00001). A similar trend was observed for the total operative time (MD, 25.07; 95%CI, 11.14-39.00; p =0.0004), and on T4 tumor stage during the pandemic (OR, 1.77; 95%CI, 1.22-2.59; p=0.003). However, there was no difference in the postoperative complications, postoperative 90-day mortality, anastomotic leakage, and 30-day readmission times between pre-COVID-19 pandemic and during the COVID-19 pandemic periods. Furthermore, there was no difference in the total hospitalization time, postoperative hospitalization time, and hospitalization time in ICU related to CRC surgery before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic did not affect the safety of CRC surgery. The operation of CRC during the COVID-19 pandemic did not increase postoperative complications, postoperative 90-day mortality, anastomotic leakage, 30-day readmission, the total hospitalization time, postoperative hospitalization time, and postoperative ICU hospitalization time. However, the operation of CRC during COVID-19 pandemic increased T4 of tumor stage during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the preoperative waiting and operation times were longer during the COVID-19 pandemic. This provides a reference for making CRC surgical strategy in the future.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022327968.
| S-EPMC10390253 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesCytokine release syndrome with elevated interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels is associated with multiorgan damage and death in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective was to perform a living systematic review of the literature concerning the efficacy and toxicity of the IL-6 receptor antagonist tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients.MethodsData sources were Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Scopus up, preprint servers and Google up to October 8, 2020. Study eligibility criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies at low or moderate risk of bias. Participants were hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Interventions included tocilizumab versus placebo or standard of care. We pooled crude risk ratios (RRs) of RCTs and adjusted RRs from cohorts, separately. We evaluated inconsistency between studies with I2. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.ResultsOf 1156 citations, 24 studies were eligible (five RCTs and 19 cohorts). Five RCTs at low risk of bias, with 1325 patients, examined the effect of tocilizumab on short-term mortality; pooled RR was 1.09 (95%CI 0.80-1.49, I2 = 0%). Four RCTs with 771 patients examined the effect of tocilizumab on risk of mechanical ventilation; pooled RR was 0.71 (95%CI 0.52-0.96, I2 = 0%), with a corresponding number needed to treat of 17 (95%CI 9-100). Among 18 cohorts at moderate risk of bias with 9850 patients, the pooled adjusted RR for mortality was 0.58 (95%CI 0.51-0.66, I2 = 2.5%). This association was observed over all degrees of COVID-19 severity. Data from the RCTs did not show a higher risk of infections or adverse events with tocilizumab: pooled RR 0.63 (95%CI 0.38-1.06, five RCTs) and 0.83 (95%CI 0.55-1.24, five RCTs), respectively.ConclusionsCumulative moderate-certainty evidence shows that tocilizumab reduces the risk of mechanical ventilation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. While RCTs showed that tocilizumab did not reduce short-term mortality, low-certainty evidence from cohort studies suggests an association between tocilizumab and lower mortality. We did not observe a higher risk of infections or adverse events with tocilizumab use. This review will continuously evaluate the role of tocilizumab in COVID-19 treatment.
| S-EPMC7644182 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAssessment of COVID-19 vaccines safety during pregnancy is urgently needed.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, including their components and technological platforms used in other vaccines during pregnancy and animal studies to complement direct evidence. We searched literature databases from its inception to September 2021 without language restriction, COVID-19 vaccine websites, and reference lists of other systematic reviews and the included studies. Pairs of reviewers independently selected, data extracted, and assessed the risk of bias of the studies. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. (PROSPERO CRD42021234185).ResultsWe retrieved 8,837 records from the literature search; 71 studies were included, involving 17,719,495 pregnant persons and 389 pregnant animals. Most studies (94%) were conducted in high-income countries, were cohort studies (51%), and 15% were classified as high risk of bias. We identified nine COVID-19 vaccine studies, seven involving 309,164 pregnant persons, mostly exposed to mRNA vaccines. Among non-COVID-19 vaccines, the most frequent exposures were AS03 and aluminum-based adjuvants. A meta-analysis of studies that adjusted for potential confounders showed no association with adverse outcomes, regardless of the vaccine or the trimester of vaccination. Neither the reported rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes nor reactogenicity exceeded expected background rates, which was the case for ASO3- or aluminum-adjuvanted non-COVID-19 vaccines in the proportion meta-analyses of uncontrolled studies/arms. The only exception was postpartum hemorrhage after COVID-19 vaccination (10.40%; 95% CI: 6.49-15.10%), reported by two studies; however, the comparison with non-exposed pregnant persons, available for one study, found non-statistically significant differences (adjusted OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.56-2.12). Animal studies showed consistent results with studies in pregnant persons.ConclusionWe found no safety concerns for currently administered COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. Additional experimental and real-world evidence could enhance vaccination coverage. Robust safety data for non-mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are still needed.
| S-EPMC10040368 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Infectious complications are common after gastrointestinal surgery. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) might reduce their incidence. SDD is used widely in colorectal resections, but its role in upper gastrointestinal resection is less clear. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of SDD on postoperative outcome in upper gastrointestinal surgery. Studies investigating SDD in upper gastrointestinal surgery were included after search of medical databases (PubMed, Ovid, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar). Results were analysed according to predefined criteria. The incidence of perioperative overall complications and death was pooled. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Some 1384 studies were identified, of which four RCTs were included in the final analysis. These studies included 415 patients, of whom 213 (51·3 per cent) received standard treatment/placebo and 202 (48·7 per cent) had SDD. The incidence of anastomotic leakage (odds ratio (OR) 0·39, 95 per cent c.i. 0·19 to 0·80; P = 0·010) and pneumonia (OR 0·42, 0·23 to 0·78; P = 0·006) was reduced in patients receiving SDD. Rates of surgical-site infection (P = 0·750) and mortality (P = 0·130) were not affected by SDD. SDD seems to be associated with reduction of anastomotic leakage and pneumonia following upper gastrointestinal resection, without affecting postoperative mortality.
| S-EPMC7709368 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesCytokine release syndrome with elevated interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels is associated with multiorgan damage and death in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective was to update the data in a living systematic review of the literature concerning the efficacy and toxicity of the IL-6 receptor antagonist tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients.MethodsData sources were Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Scopus up, preprint servers and Google from 8th October 2020 till 24th February 2021. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies at low or moderate risk of bias. The participants were hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and intervention was tocilizumab versus placebo or standard of care. We pooled crude risk ratios (RRs) of RCTs with a random effects model and evaluated inconsistency between studies with I2. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.ResultsOf 1600 citations, eight RCTs and 28 cohorts were eligible. The eight RCTs had low risk of bias, and with 6311 patients they examined the effect of tocilizumab on short-term mortality; pooled RR was 0.91 (95%CI 0.78-1.07, I2 25%). Only the REMAP-CAP and RECOVERY trials, with the majority of their patients on concomitant corticosteroids, showed lower 30-day mortality with tocilizumab use: RR 0.74 (95%CI 0.59-0.93) and 0.89 (95%CI 0.81-0.97), respectively. Seven RCTs, with 5391 patients, examined the effect of tocilizumab on risk of mechanical ventilation; pooled RR was 0.84 (95%CI 0.76-0.93), I2 0%, with a corresponding number needed to treat of 20 (95%CI 14.3-33.3). Eight RCTs, with 5340 patients, examined the effect of tocilizumab on a composite of poor outcome; pooled RR was 0.82 (95%CI 0.76-0.90, I2 3%). Data from the RCTs showed a lower risk of infections and no higher risk of serious adverse events with tocilizumab: pooled RR 0.67 (95%CI 0.45-0.99, eight RCTs) and 0.85 (95%CI 0.63-1.16, seven RCTs), respectively. Among 28 cohorts with 15 484 patients, the pooled adjusted RR for mortality was 0.53 (95%CI 0.43-0.67, I2 76%).ConclusionsCumulative high-certainty evidence shows that tocilizumab reduces the risk of mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that tocilizumab reduces the risk of poor outcome and the risk of secondary infections in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This review will continuously evaluate the role of tocilizumab in COVID-19 treatment.
| S-EPMC8076756 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Available data suggest that the immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines might decrease in the immunocompromised population, but data on vaccine immunogenicity and safety among people living with HIV (PLWH) are still lacking. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in PLWH with healthy controls. We comprehensively searched the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. The risk ratio (RR) of seroconversion after the first and second doses of a COVID-19 vaccine was separately pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Seroconversion rate was lower among PLWH compared with healthy individuals after the first (RR = 0.77, 95% confident interval (CI) 0.64-0.92) and second doses (RR = 0.97, 95%CI 0.95-0.99). The risk of total adverse reactions among PLWH is similar to the risk in the healthy group, after the first (RR = 0.87, 95%CI 0.70-1.10) and second (RR = 0.83, 95%CI 0.65-1.07) doses. This study demonstrates that the immunogenicity and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in fully vaccinated HIV-infected patients were generally satisfactory. A second dose was related to seroconversion enhancement. Therefore, we considered that a booster dose may provide better seroprotection for PLWH. On the basis of a conventional two-dose regimen for COVID-19 vaccines, the booster dose is very necessary.
| S-EPMC10600909 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH) are unclear. We aimed to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines among PLWH. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from 1 January 2020 to 28 April 2022 and included observational studies, randomized clinical trials, and non-randomized clinical trials reporting extractable data about the immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines among PLWH. Results: A total of 34 eligible studies covering 4517 PLWH were included. The pooled seroconversion rates among PLWH after the first and second doses were 67.51% (95% confident interval (CI) 49.09–85.93%) and 96.65% (95%CI 95.56–97.75%), respectively. The seroconversion was similar between PLWH and healthy controls after the first (risk ratio (RR) = 0.89, 95%CI 0.76–1.04) and the second (RR = 0.97, 95%CI 0.93–1.00) dose. Moreover, the geometric mean titer (GMT) showed no significant difference between PLWH and healthy controls after the first dose (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.30, 95%CI -1.11, 1.70) and the second dose (SMD = -0.06, 95%CI -0.18, 0.05). Additionally, the pooled incidence rates of total adverse events among PLWH after the first and the second dose were 46.55% (95%CI 28.29–64.82%) and 30.96% (95%CI 13.23–48.70%), respectively. There was no significant difference in risks of total adverse events between PLWH and healthy controls after the first (RR = 0.86, 95%CI 0.67–1.10) and the second (RR = 0.88, 95%CI 0.68–1.14) dose. Conclusions: The available evidence suggested that the immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines among PLWH were acceptable. There was no significant difference in the seroconversion rates and incidence rates of adverse events of COVID-19 vaccines between PLWH and healthy controls.
| S-EPMC9503586 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:The transmission of COVID-19 virus since the outbreak of viral pneumonia due to SARS-CoV-2 gave rise to protective operative measures. Aerosol generating procedures such as laparoscopic surgery are known to be associated with increased risks of viral transmission to the healthcare workers. The safety of laparoscopy during the pandemic was then debated. We aimed to systematically review the literature regarding the safe use of laparoscopy during COVID-19. METHODS:We performed a systematic search using PubMed and ScienceDirect databases from inception to 1st May, 2020. The following search terms were used: ''laparoscopic surgery and COVID-19''; ''minimally invasive surgery and COVID-19''. Search items were considered from the nature of the articles, date of publication, aims and findings in relation to use of laparoscopic surgery during COVID-19. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO register for systematic reviews (CRD42020183432). RESULTS:Altogether, 174 relevant citations were identified and reviewed for this study, of which 22 articles were included. The analysis of the findings in relation to laparoscopic surgery during the pandemic were presented in tabular form. We completed the common recommendations for performing laparoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic in forms of pre-, intra- and postoperative phases. CONCLUSION:There is no scientific evidence to date for the transmission of COVID-19 by laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopy can be used with precautions because of its benefits compared to open surgery. If safe, conservative management is the primary alternative during the pandemic. We concluded that recommended precautions should be respected while performing laparoscopy during the pandemic.
| S-EPMC7418789 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Several epidemiological studies have investigated the association between dietary flavonoid intake and digestive tract cancers risk; however, the results remain inconclusive. The aim of our study was to evaluate this association. PubMed and the Web of Knowledge were searched for relevant publications from inception to October 2015. The risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR) with the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the highest versus the lowest categories of flavonoid intake were pooled using a fixed-effects model. A total of 15 articles reporting 23 studies were selected for the meta-analysis. In a comparison of the highest versus the lowest categories of dietary flavonoid intake, we found no significant association between flavonoid intake and oesophageal cancer (OR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.75-1.10; I(2) = 0.0%), colorectal cancer (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.92-1.14, I(2) = 36.2%) or gastric cancer (OR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.74-1.04, I(2) = 63.6%). The subgroup analysis indicated an association between higher flavonoid intake and a decreased risk of gastric cancer in the European population (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.62-0.97). In conclusion, the results of this meta-analysis do not strongly support an association between dietary flavonoid intake and oesophageal or colorectal cancer. Furthermore, the subgroup analysis suggested an association between higher dietary flavonoid intake and decreased gastric cancer risk in European population.
| S-EPMC4845003 | biostudies-other