Dataset Information

Predictors of clinical evolution of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hematological patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Main aim of this systematic review is to quantify the risk and identify predictors of clinical evolution of SARS-CoV-2 in hematological patients compared to different control populations. Two independent reviewers screened the literature assessing clinical outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adult patients with active hematological malignancies published up to June 2021. Primary outcome was COVID-19 related mortality, secondary outcomes were hospital and intensive-care admission, mechanical ventilation (MV), and thromboembolic events. Variables related to study setting, baseline patients' demographic, comorbidities, underlying hematological disease, ongoing chemotherapy, COVID-19 presentation, and treatments were extracted. A total of 67 studies including 10,061 hematological patients and 111,143 controls were included. Most of the studies were retrospective cohorts (51 studies, 76%) and only 19 (13%) provided data for a control group. A significant increased risk of clinical progression in the hematological population compared to the controls was found in terms of COVID-19 related mortality (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.77-2.54), hospitalization (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.15-3.43), intensive-care admission (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.38-2.26), and MV (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.71-2.75). The risk remained significantly higher in the subgroup analysis comparing hematological patients versus solid cancer. Meta-regression analysis of uncontrolled studies showed that older age, male sex, and hypertension were significantly related to worse clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in hematological population. Older age and hypertension were found to be associated also to thromboembolic events. In conclusion, hematological patients have a higher risk of COVID-19 clinical progression compared to both the general population and to patients with solid cancer.

SUBMITTER: Carrara E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9874549 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Predictors of clinical evolution of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hematological patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Carrara Elena E Razzaboni Elisa E Azzini Anna Maria AM De Rui Maria Elena ME Pinho Guedes Mariana Nunes MN Gorska Anna A Giannella Maddalena M Bussini Linda L Bartoletti Michele M Arbizzani Federica F Palacios-Baena Zaira R ZR Caponcello Giulia G Maldonado Natalia N Rodríguez-Baño Jesús J Visco Carlo C Krampera Mauro M Tacconelli Evelina E

Hematological oncology 20221020 1

Main aim of this systematic review is to quantify the risk and identify predictors of clinical evolution of SARS-CoV-2 in hematological patients compared to different control populations. Two independent reviewers screened the literature assessing clinical outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adult patients with active hematological malignancies published up to June 2021. Primary outcome was COVID-19 related mortality, secondary outcomes were hospital and intensive-care admission, mechanical vent ...[more]

PMID: 36238977

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPerform a systematic review and meta-analysis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and pregnancy.MethodsDatabases (Medline, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane Library) were searched electronically on 6th April and updated regularly until 8th June 2020. Reports of pregnant women with reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) confirmed COVID-19 were included. Meta-analytical proportion summaries and meta-regression analyses for key clinical outcomes are provided.Findings86 studies were included, 17 studies (2567 pregnancies) in the quantitative synthesis; other small case series and case reports were used to extract rarely-reported events and outcome. Most women (73.9%) were in the third trimester; 52.4% have delivered, half by caesarean section (48.3%). The proportion of Black, Asian or minority ethnic group membership (50.8%); obesity (38.2%), and chronic co-morbidities (32.5%) were high. The most commonly reported clinical symptoms were fever (63.3%), cough (71.4%) and dyspnoea (34.4%). The commonest laboratory abnormalities were raised CRP or procalcitonin (54.0%), lymphopenia (34.2%) and elevated transaminases (16.0%). Preterm birth before 37 weeks' gestation was common (21.8%), usually medically-indicated (18.4%). Maternal intensive care unit admission was required in 7.0%, with intubation in 3.4%. Maternal mortality was uncommon (~1%). Maternal intensive care admission was higher in cohorts with higher rates of co-morbidities (beta=0.007, p<0.05) and maternal age over 35 years (beta=0.007, p<0.01). Maternal mortality was higher in cohorts with higher rates of antiviral drug use (beta=0.03, p<0.001), likely due to residual confounding. Neonatal nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR was positive in 1.4%.InterpretationThe risk of iatrogenic preterm birth and caesarean delivery was increased. The available evidence is reassuring, suggesting that maternal morbidity is similar to that of women of reproductive age. Vertical transmission of the virus probably occurs, albeit in a small proportion of cases.FundingN/A.

Project description:Background Understanding the level and characteristics of protection from past SARS-CoV-2 infection against subsequent re-infection, symptomatic COVID-19 disease, and severe disease is essential for predicting future potential disease burden, for designing policies that restrict travel or access to venues where there is a high risk of transmission, and for informing choices about when to receive vaccine doses. We aimed to systematically synthesise studies to estimate protection from past infection by variant, and where data allow, by time since infection. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified, reviewed, and extracted from the scientific literature retrospective and prospective cohort studies and test-negative case-control studies published from inception up to Sept 31, 2022, that estimated the reduction in risk of COVID-19 among individuals with a past SARS-CoV-2 infection in comparison to those without a previous infection. We meta-analysed the effectiveness of past infection by outcome (infection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease), variant, and time since infection. We ran a Bayesian meta-regression to estimate the pooled estimates of protection. Risk-of-bias assessment was evaluated using the National Institutes of Health quality-assessment tools. The systematic review was PRISMA compliant and was registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42022303850). Findings We identified a total of 65 studies from 19 different countries. Our meta-analyses showed that protection from past infection and any symptomatic disease was high for ancestral, alpha, beta, and delta variants, but was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant. Pooled effectiveness against re-infection by the omicron BA.1 variant was 45·3% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 17·3–76·1) and 44·0% (26·5–65·0) against omicron BA.1 symptomatic disease. Mean pooled effectiveness was greater than 78% against severe disease (hospitalisation and death) for all variants, including omicron BA.1. Protection from re-infection from ancestral, alpha, and delta variants declined over time but remained at 78·6% (49·8–93·6) at 40 weeks. Protection against re-infection by the omicron BA.1 variant declined more rapidly and was estimated at 36·1% (24·4–51·3) at 40 weeks. On the other hand, protection against severe disease remained high for all variants, with 90·2% (69·7–97·5) for ancestral, alpha, and delta variants, and 88·9% (84·7–90·9) for omicron BA.1 at 40 weeks. Interpretation Protection from past infection against re-infection from pre-omicron variants was very high and remained high even after 40 weeks. Protection was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant and declined more rapidly over time than protection against previous variants. Protection from severe disease was high for all variants. The immunity conferred by past infection should be weighed alongside protection from vaccination when assessing future disease burden from COVID-19, providing guidance on when individuals should be vaccinated, and designing policies that mandate vaccination for workers or restrict access, on the basis of immune status, to settings where the risk of transmission is high, such as travel and high-occupancy indoor settings. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, J Stanton, T Gillespie, and J and E Nordstrom.

Project description:Clinical trials evaluating the safety and antibody response of strategies to manipulate prophylactic and therapeutic immunity have been launched. We aim to evaluate strategies for augmentation of host immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We searched clinical trials registered at the National Institutes of Health by 25 May 2021 and conducted analyses on inoculated populations, involved immunological processes, source of injected components, and trial phases. We then searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for their corresponding reports published by 25 May 2021. A bivariate, random-effects meta-analysis was used to derive the pooled estimate of seroconversion and adverse events (AEs). A total of 929,359 participants were enrolled in 389 identified trials. The working mechanisms included heterologous immunity, active immunity, passive immunity, and immunotherapy, with 62.4% of the trials on vaccines. A total of 9072 healthy adults from 27 publications for 22 clinical trials on active immunity implementing vaccination were included for meta-analyses. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) of seroconversion were 13.94, 84.86, 106.03, and 451.04 (all p < 0.01) for vaccines based on protein, RNA, viral vector, and inactivated virus, compared with that of respective placebo/control treatment or pre-vaccination sera. The pooled ORs for safety, as defined by the inverse of systemic adverse events (AEs) were 0.53 (95% CI = 0.27-1.05; p = 0.07), 0.35 (95% CI = 0.16-0.75; p = 0.007), 0.32 (95% CI = 0.19-0.55; p < 0.0001), and 1.00 (95% CI = 0.73-1.36; p = 0.98) for vaccines based on protein, RNA, viral vector, and inactivated virus, compared with that of placebo/control treatment. A paradigm shift from all four immune-augmentative interventions to active immunity implementing vaccination was observed through clinical trials. The efficacy of immune responses to neutralize SARS-CoV-2 for these vaccines was promising, although systemic AEs were still evident for RNA-based and viral vector-based vaccines.

Project description:BackgroundThe protective effectiveness provided by naturally acquired immunity against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection remain controversial.ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the protective effect of natural immunity against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection with different variants.MethodsWe searched for related studies published in seven databases before March 5, 2023. Eligible studies included in the analysis reported the risk of subsequent infection for groups with or without a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome was the overall pooled incidence rate ratio (IRR) of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection/infection between the two groups. We also focused on the protective effectiveness of natural immunity against reinfection/infection with different SARS-CoV-2 variants. We used a random-effects model to pool the data, and obtained the bias-adjusted results using the trim-and-fill method. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore the sources of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding included studies one by one to evaluate the stability of the results.ResultsWe identified 40 eligible articles including more than 20 million individuals without the history of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The bias-adjusted efficacy of naturally acquired antibodies against reinfection was estimated at 65% (pooled IRR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.26-0.47), with higher efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 cases (pooled IRR = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.08-0.26) than asymptomatic infection (pooled IRR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.29-0.54). Meta-regression revealed that SARS-CoV-2 variant was a statistically significant effect modifier, which explaining 46.40% of the variation in IRRs. For different SARS-CoV-2 variant, the pooled IRRs for the Alpha (pooled IRR = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.06-0.19), Delta (pooled IRR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.15-0.24) and Omicron (pooled IRR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.42-0.87) variant were higher and higher. In other subgroup analyses, the pooled IRRs of SARS-CoV-2 infection were statistically various in different countries, publication year and the inclusion end time of population, with a significant difference (p = 0.02, p < 0.010 and p < 0.010), respectively. The risk of subsequent infection in the seropositive population appeared to increase slowly over time. Despite the heterogeneity in included studies, sensitivity analyses showed stable results.ConclusionPrevious SARS-CoV-2 infection provides protection against pre-omicron reinfection, but less against omicron. Ongoing viral mutation requires attention and prevention strategies, such as vaccine catch-up, in conjunction with multiple factors.

Project description:BackgroundGlobal evidence on the transmission of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection needs to be synthesized.MethodsA search of 4 electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases) as of January 24, 2021 was performed. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Studies which reported the transmission rate among close contacts with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 cases were included, and transmission activities occurred were considered. The transmission rates were pooled by zero-inflated beta distribution. The risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using random-effects models.ResultsOf 4923 records retrieved and reviewed, 15 studies including 3917 close contacts with asymptomatic indexes were eligible. The pooled transmission rates were 1.79 per 100 person-days (or 1.79%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41%-3.16%) by asymptomatic index, which is significantly lower than by presymptomatic (5.02%, 95% CI 2.37%-7.66%; p<0.001), and by symptomatic (5.27%, 95% CI 2.40%-8.15%; p<0.001). Subgroup analyses showed that the household transmission rate of asymptomatic index was (4.22%, 95% CI 0.91%-7.52%), four times significantly higher than non-household transmission (1.03%, 95% CI 0.73%-1.33%; p=0.03), and the asymptomatic transmission rate in China (1.82%, 95% CI 0.11%-3.53%) was lower than in other countries (2.22%, 95% CI 0.67%-3.77%; p=0.01).ConclusionsPeople with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection are at risk of transmitting the virus to their close contacts, particularly in household settings. The transmission potential of asymptomatic infection is lower than symptomatic and presymptomatic infections. This meta-analysis provides evidence for predicting the epidemic trend and promulgating vaccination and other control measures. Registered with PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, CRD42021269446; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=269446.

Dataset Information

Predictors of clinical evolution of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hematological patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Predictors of clinical evolution of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hematological patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets