Dataset Information

Association of active immunotherapy with outcomes in cancer patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there are growing concerns about the safety of administering immunotherapy in cancer patients with COVID-19. However, current clinical guidelines provided no clear recommendation.

Methods

Studies were searched and retrieved from electronic databases. The meta-analysis was performed by employing the generic inverse-variance method. A random-effects model was used to calculate the unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) and adjusted ORs with the corresponding 95% CIs.

Results

This meta-analysis included 20 articles with 6,042 cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19. According to the univariate analysis, the acceptance of immunotherapy within 30 days before COVID-19 diagnosis did not increase the mortality of cancer patients (OR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.68-1.25; P=0.61). Moreover, after adjusting for confounders, the adjusted OR for mortality was 0.51, with borderline significance (95% CI: 0.25-1.01; P=0.053). Similarly, the univariate analysis showed that the acceptance of immunotherapy within 30 days before COVID-19 diagnosis did not increase the risk of severe/critical disease in cancer patients (OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.78-1.47; P=0.66). No significant between-study heterogeneity was found in these analyses.

Conclusions

Accepting immunotherapy within 30 days before the diagnosis of COVID-19 was not significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality or severe/critical disease of infected cancer patients. Further prospectively designed studies with large sample sizes are required to evaluate the present results.

SUBMITTER: Cao C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8954969 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association of active immunotherapy with outcomes in cancer patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cao Chang C Gan Xinyan X Hu Xiaolin X Su Yonglin Y Zhang Yu Y Peng Xingchen X

Aging 20220310 5

<h4>Background</h4>During the COVID-19 pandemic, there are growing concerns about the safety of administering immunotherapy in cancer patients with COVID-19. However, current clinical guidelines provided no clear recommendation.<h4>Methods</h4>Studies were searched and retrieved from electronic databases. The meta-analysis was performed by employing the generic inverse-variance method. A random-effects model was used to calculate the unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) and adjusted ORs with the corresp ...[more]

PMID: 35271463

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceConvalescent plasma is a proposed treatment for COVID-19.ObjectiveTo assess clinical outcomes with convalescent plasma treatment vs placebo or standard of care in peer-reviewed and preprint publications or press releases of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).Data sourcesPubMed, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, and the Living Overview of Evidence platform were searched until January 29, 2021.Study selectionThe RCTs selected compared any type of convalescent plasma vs placebo or standard of care for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in any treatment setting.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data on relevant clinical outcomes, trial characteristics, and patient characteristics and used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. The primary analysis included peer-reviewed publications of RCTs only, whereas the secondary analysis included all publicly available RCT data (peer-reviewed publications, preprints, and press releases). Inverse variance-weighted meta-analyses were conducted to summarize the treatment effects. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.Main outcomes and measuresAll-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, mechanical ventilation use, and serious adverse events.ResultsA total of 1060 patients from 4 peer-reviewed RCTs and 10 722 patients from 6 other publicly available RCTs were included. The summary risk ratio (RR) for all-cause mortality with convalescent plasma in the 4 peer-reviewed RCTs was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.38), the absolute risk difference was -1.21% (95% CI, -5.29% to 2.88%), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision. Across all 10 RCTs, the summary RR was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.12) and there was moderate certainty of the evidence due to inclusion of unpublished data. Among the peer-reviewed RCTs, the summary hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.07 to 20.34) for length of hospital stay, the summary RR was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.20 to 2.87) for mechanical ventilation use (the absolute risk difference for mechanical ventilation use was -2.56% [95% CI, -13.16% to 8.05%]), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision for both outcomes. Limited data on clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, and serious adverse events showed no significant differences.Conclusions and relevanceTreatment with convalescent plasma compared with placebo or standard of care was not significantly associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality or with any benefit for other clinical outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate for all-cause mortality and low for other outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundWe performed a systematic review of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, which analysed the effect of tracheostomy timing and technique (surgical vs percutaneous) on mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), decannulation from tracheostomy, duration of mechanical ventilation, and complications.MethodsFour databases were screened between January 1, 2020 and January 10, 2022 (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane). Papers were selected according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the Population or Problem, Intervention or exposure, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) guidelines. Meta-analysis and meta-regression for main outcomes were performed.ResultsThe search yielded 9024 potentially relevant studies, of which 47 (n=5268 patients) were included. High levels of between-study heterogeneity were observed across study outcomes. The pooled mean tracheostomy timing was 16.5 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.7-18.4; I2=99.6%). Pooled mortality was 22.1% (95% CI: 18.7-25.5; I2=89.0%). Meta-regression did not show significant associations between mortality and tracheostomy timing, mechanical ventilation duration, time to decannulation, and tracheostomy technique. Pooled mean estimates for ICU and hospital LOS were 29.6 (95% CI: 24.0-35.2; I2=98.6%) and 38.8 (95% CI: 32.1-45.6; I2=95.7%) days, both associated with mechanical ventilation duration (coefficient 0.8 [95% CI: 0.2-1.4], P=0.02 and 0.9 [95% CI: 0.4-1.4], P=0.01, respectively) but not tracheostomy timing. Data were insufficient to assess tracheostomy technique on LOS. Duration of mechanical ventilation was 23.4 days (95% CI: 19.2-27.7; I2=99.3%), not associated with tracheostomy timing. Data were insufficient to assess the effect of tracheostomy technique on mechanical ventilation duration. Time to decannulation was 23.8 days (95% CI: 19.7-27.8; I2=98.7%), not influenced by tracheostomy timing or technique. The most common complications were stoma infection, ulcers or necrosis, and bleeding.ConclusionsIn patients with COVID-19 requiring tracheostomy, the timing and technique of tracheostomy did not clearly impact on patient outcomes.Systematic review protocolPROSPERO CRD42021272220.

Project description:BackgroundOur understanding of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its implications for patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) is rapidly evolving. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and outcomes in IBD patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Clinicaltrials.gov, Web of Science, MedRxiv, and Google Scholar from inception through October 2020. We included studies with IBD patients and confirmed COVID-19. Data were collected on the prevalence, patient characteristics, pre-infection treatments for IBD, comorbidities, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU), admission, and death.ResultsTwenty-three studies with 51,643 IBD patients and 1449 with COVID-19 met our inclusion criteria. In 14 studies (n = 50,706) that included IBD patients with and without COVID-19, the prevalence of infection was 1.01% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.10). Of IBD patients with COVID-19, 52.7% had Crohn's disease, 42.2% had ulcerative colitis, and 5.1% had indeterminate colitis. Nine studies (n = 687) reported outcomes according to IBD therapy received. Compared with patients on corticosteroids, those on antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy had a lower risk of hospitalization (risk ratio [RR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.16-0.35; P < .01; I2 = 0%) and ICU admission (RR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.03-0.37; P < .01) but not death (RR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.02-1.71; P = .13; I2 = 39%). Compared with patients on mesalamine, those on antitumor necrosis factor therapy had a lower risk of hospitalizations (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.25-0.54), ICU admissions (RR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07-0.58), and death (0.21; 95% CI, 0.04-1.00). Comparing patients on immunomodulators vs mesalamine or anti-TNF therapy, there was no difference in these outcomes.ConclusionsThe prevalence of COVID-19 in IBD patients was low. Use of corticosteroids or mesalamine was significantly associated with worse outcomes, whereas use of anti-TNFs was associated with more favorable outcomes. Further investigation clarifying the mechanisms of these disparate observations could help identify risk and adverse outcome-mitigating strategies for patients with IBD.

Dataset Information

Association of active immunotherapy with outcomes in cancer patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Association of active immunotherapy with outcomes in cancer patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets