Dataset Information

Association of frailty with outcomes in individuals with COVID-19: A living review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

Frailty leaves older adults vulnerable to adverse health outcomes. Frailty assessment is recommended by multiple COVID-19 guidelines to inform care and resource allocation. We aimed to identify, describe, and synthesize studies reporting the association of frailty with outcomes (informed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Triple Aim [health, resource use, and experience]) in individuals with COVID-19.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting

Studies reporting associations between frailty and outcomes in the setting of COVID-19 diagnosis.

Participants

Adults with COVID-19.

Measurements

Following review of titles, abstracts and full text, we included 52 studies that contained 118,373 participants with COVID-19. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognostic studies tool. Our primary outcome was mortality, secondary outcomes included delirium, intensive care unit admission, need for ventilation and discharge location. Where appropriate, random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool adjusted and unadjusted effect measures by frailty instrument.

Results

The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) was the most used frailty instrument. Mortality was reported in 37 studies. After confounder adjustment, frailty identified using the CFS was significantly associated with mortality in COVID-19 positive patients (odds ratio 1.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49-2.14; hazard ratio 1.87, 95% CI 1.33-2.61). On an unadjusted basis, frailty identified using the CFS was significantly associated with increased odds of delirium and reduced odds of intensive care unit admission. Results were generally consistent using other frailty instruments. Patient-reported, cost and experience outcomes were rarely reported.

Conclusion

Frailty is associated with a substantial increase in mortality risk in COVID-19 patients, even after adjustment. Delirium risk is also increased. Frailty assessment may help to guide prognosis and individualized care planning, but data relating frailty status to patient-reported outcomes are urgently needed to provide a more comprehensive overview of outcomes relevant to older adults.

SUBMITTER: Dumitrascu F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8242611 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association of frailty with outcomes in individuals with COVID-19: A living review and meta-analysis.

Dumitrascu Flavia F Branje Karina E KE Hladkowicz Emily S ES Lalu Manoj M McIsaac Daniel I DI

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 20210605 9

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>Frailty leaves older adults vulnerable to adverse health outcomes. Frailty assessment is recommended by multiple COVID-19 guidelines to inform care and resource allocation. We aimed to identify, describe, and synthesize studies reporting the association of frailty with outcomes (informed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Triple Aim [health, resource use, and experience]) in individuals with COVID-19.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis. ...[more]

PMID: 34048599

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThe aim of this study was to continually evaluate the association between cardiovascular drug exposure and COVID-19 clinical outcomes (susceptibility to infection, disease severity, hospitalization, hospitalization length, and all-cause mortality) in patients at risk of/with confirmed COVID-19.MethodsEligible publications were identified from more than 500 databases on 1 November 2020. One reviewer extracted data with 20% of the records independently extracted/evaluated by a second reviewer.ResultsOf 52 735 screened records, 429 and 390 studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses, respectively. The most-reported drugs were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) with ACEI/ARB exposure having borderline association with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.00-1.31). Among COVID-19 patients, unadjusted estimates showed that ACEI/ARB exposure was associated with hospitalization (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.34-2.32), disease severity (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.26-1.55) and all-cause mortality (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12-1.33) but not hospitalization length (mean difference -0.27, 95% CI -1.36-0.82 days). After adjustment, ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71-1.19), hospitalization (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.70-1.24), disease severity (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.81-1.38) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.00). Similarly, subgroup analyses involving only hypertensive patients revealed that ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79-1.09), hospitalization (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58-1.22), hospitalization length (mean difference -0.14, 95% CI -1.65-1.36 days), disease severity (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76-1.11) while it decreased the odds of dying (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65-0.88). A similar trend was observed for other cardiovascular drugs. However, the validity of these findings is limited by a high level of heterogeneity and serious risk of bias.ConclusionCardiovascular drugs are not associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes in adjusted analyses. Patients should continue taking these drugs as prescribed.

Project description:BackgroundFrail patients are increasingly vulnerable to stress, which is mainly manifested by a reduced physiologic reserve in metabolic and immune systems and neuromuscular system. Several studies found a significant association of frailty with COVID-19 severity to support the evidence for the application of frailty assessment. However, there were contradictory results in other studies. Thus we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize the current studies to investigate impact of frailty on COVID-19 outcomes and provide evidence-based decisions in clinical practice.ObjectiveWe aimed to synthesize the current studies to investigate impact of frailty on COVID-19 outcomes and provide evidence-based decisions in clinical practice.DesignA systematic review and Meta-analysis of 16 cohort studies.ParticipantsPatients with COVID-19.MethodsA systematic retrieving for potential literature was conducted in several public electronic databases, including Medline(OvidSP), EMBASE, Pubmed and Chinese databases(China National Knowledge Infrastructure,Wanfang and Weipu) on August 1, 2020.The literature research was updated on October 26, 2020. Newcastle Ottawa Scale for cohort studies was used for quality assessment. RevMan (Version 5.3) and Stata 14.0 were used to synthesize the pooled effects.ResultsAccording to the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, sixteen studies of 4324 patients were included in the final analysis. Frailty was significantly associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality among patients with COVID-19, with pooled adjusted odds ratios of 1.81 (95% confidence intervals:1.48,2.21, I2=87.0%, P<0.001). The result was consistent in stratified analysis to according to age, patient source, definitions of frailty, study quality, and adjustment method. Frailty was significant associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 severity, admission to intensive care unit, application of invasive mechanical ventilation, long-length stay.ConclusionsIn this meta-analysis, we found frailty was significantly associated with an increased risk of clinical adverse events (all- cause mortality, COVID-19 severity, admission to the intensive care unit, application of invasive mechanical ventilation, long-length stay). Given the epidemic of COVID-19 and shortage of medical resources, paying more attention to screening frailty would contribute to disease management and resource allocation among patients with COVID-19.

Project description:IntroductionConflicting reports of increases and decreases in rates of preterm birth (PTB) and stillbirth in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic have surfaced. The objective of our study was to conduct a living systematic review and meta-analyses of studies reporting pregnancy and neonatal outcomes by comparing the pandemic and pre-pandemic periods.Material and methodsWe searched PubMed and Embase databases, reference lists of articles published up until 14 May 2021 and included English language studies that compared outcomes between the COVID-19 pandemic time period and pre-pandemic time periods. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis using the inverse variance method.ResultsThirty-seven studies with low-to-moderate risk of bias, reporting on 1 677 858 pregnancies during the pandemic period and 21 028 650 pregnancies during the pre-pandemic period, were included. There was a significant reduction in unadjusted estimates of PTB (28 studies, unadjusted odds ratio [uaOR] 0.94, 95% confidence [CI] 0.91-0.98) but not in adjusted estimates (six studies, adjusted OR [aOR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.80-1.13). The reduction was noted in studies from single centers/health areas (uaOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86-0.94) but not in regional/national studies (uaOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95-1.03). There was reduction in spontaneous PTB (five studies, uaOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.98) and induced PTB (four studies, uaOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81-1.00). There was no reduction in PTB when stratified by gestational age <34, <32 or <28 weeks. There was no difference in stillbirths between the pandemic and pre-pandemic time periods (21 studies, uaOR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94-1.23; four studies, aOR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81-1.38). There was an increase in birthweight (six studies, mean difference 17 g, 95% CI 7-28 g) during the pandemic period. There was an increase in maternal mortality (four studies, uaOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.26), which was mostly influenced by one study from Mexico. There was significant publication bias for the outcome of PTB.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic time period may be associated with a reduction in PTB; however, referral bias cannot be excluded. There was no difference in stillbirth between the pandemic and pre-pandemic period.

Project description:UpdatesThis is the second version (first update) of the living systematic review, replacing the previous version (available as a data supplement). When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.ObjectiveTo determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).Data sourcesWorld Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 4 March 2022.Study selectionRandomised trials in which people at risk of covid-19 were allocated to prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsAfter duplicate data abstraction, we conducted random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsThe second iteration of this living NMA includes 32 randomised trials which enrolled 25 147 participants and addressed 21 different prophylactic drugs; adding 21 trials (66%), 18 162 participants (75%) and 16 (76%) prophylactic drugs. Of the 16 prophylactic drugs analysed, none provided convincing evidence of a reduction in the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. For admission to hospital and mortality outcomes, no prophylactic drug proved different than standard care or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation—risk difference for hydroxychloroquine (RD) 6 more per 1000 (95% credible interval (CrI) 2 more to 10 more); for vitamin C combined with zinc, RD 69 more per 1000 (47 more to 90 more), moderate certainty evidence.ConclusionsMuch of the evidence remains very low certainty and we therefore anticipate future studies evaluating drugs for prophylaxis may change the results for SARS-CoV-2 infection, admission to hospital and mortality outcomes. Both hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase adverse effects.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement.FundingThis study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC:0579001321).

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesWHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis.Study selectionRandomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsAfter duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance.Results463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty).ConclusionCorticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material.Readers' noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

Dataset Information

Association of frailty with outcomes in individuals with COVID-19: A living review and meta-analysis.

Background and objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Measurements

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Association of frailty with outcomes in individuals with COVID-19: A living review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets