Fibrosis-4 index and mortality in coronavirus disease 2019: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4) in COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases on 26 November 2020. FIB-4 was calculated by [age (years) × AST (IU/L)]/[platelet count (109/L) × âˆšALT (U/L)]. A value above cutoff point was considered high and a value below cutoff point was considered low. The main outcome was mortality, the association between high FIB-4 and mortality was reported in odds ratio (OR). Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic OR (DOR), area under the curve (AUC) were generated. RESULTS: There were 963 patients from five studies included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed that high FIB-4 was associated with increased mortality [OR 3.96 (2.16-7.27), P < 0.001; I2: 41.3%]. High FIB-4 was associated mortality with a sensitivity of 0.56 (0.40-0.70), specificity of 0.80 (0.72-0.86), PLR 2.8 (1.8-4.2), NLR 0.55 (0.39-0.78), DOR 5 (2-10), and AUC of 0.77 (0.73-0.81). Fagan's nomogram indicated that for a pre-test probability (mortality) of 30%, a high FIB-4 was associated with 54% post-test probability and a low FIB-4 was associated with 19%, respectively. The funnel-plot analysis was asymmetrical, trim-and-fill analysis by imputation of a study on the left side using linear estimator resulted in an OR of 3.48 (1.97-6.14). Egger's test showed no indication of small-study effects (P = 0.881). CONCLUSION: High FIB-4 was associated with mortality in patients with COVID-19.

Proton pump inhibitor on susceptibility to COVID-19 and its severity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The negative impacts of proton pump inhibitor (PPI), including the risk of pneumonia and mortality, have been reported previously. This meta-analysis aimed to address the current interest of whether the administration of PPI could increase the susceptibility and risk of poor outcome in COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search from PubMed, Embase, EBSCOhost, and EuropePMC databases up until 3 December 2020. The main outcome was composite poor outcome which comprised of mortality and severe COVID-19. Severe COVID-19 in this study was defined as patients with COVID-19 that fulfill the criteria for severe CAP, including the need for intensive unit care or mechanical ventilation. The secondary outcome was susceptibility, based on cohort comparing COVID-19 positive and COVID-19 negative participants. RESULTS: There were a total of 290,455 patients from 12 studies in this meta-analysis. PPI use was associated with increased composite poor outcome (OR 1.85 [1.13, 3.03], p = 0.014; I2 90.26%). Meta-regression analysis indicate that the association does not vary by age (OR 0.97 [0.92, 1.02], p = 0.244), male (OR 1.05 [0.99, 1.11], p = 0.091), hypertension (OR 9.98 [0.95, 1.02], p = 0.317), diabetes (OR 0.99 [0.93, 1.05], p = 0.699), chronic kidney disease (OR 1.01 [0.93, 1.10], p = 0.756), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use (OR 1.02 [0.96, 1.09], p = 0.499), and pre-admission/in-hospital PPI use (OR 0.77 [0.26, 2.31], p = 0.644). PPI use was not associated with the susceptibility to COVID-19 (OR 1.56 [0.48, 5.05], p = 0.46; I2 99.7%). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis showed a potential association between PPI use and composite poor outcome, but not susceptibility. PROSPERO ID: CRD42020224286.

Delirium and Mortality in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults are indisputably struck hard by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The main objective of this meta-analysis is to establish the association between delirium and mortality in older adults with COVID-19. METHODS: Systematic literature searches of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were performed up until 28 November 2020. The exposure in this study was the diagnosis of delirium using clinically validated criteria. Delirium might be in-hospital, at admission, or both. The main outcome was mortality defined as clinically validated non-survivor/death. The effect estimates were reported as odds ratios (ORs) and adjusted odds ratios (aORs). RESULTS: A total of 3,868 patients from 9 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The percentage of patients with delirium was 27% [20%, 34%]. Every 1 mg/L increase in CRP was significantly associated with 1% increased delirium risk (OR 1.01 [1.00. 1.02], p=0.033). Delirium was associated with mortality (OR 2.39 [1.64, 3.49], p<0.001; I2: 82.88%). Subgroup analysis on delirium assessed at admission indicate independent association (OR 2.12 [1.39, 3.25], p<0.001; I2: 82.67%). Pooled adjusted analysis indicated that delirium was independently associated with mortality (aOR 1.50 [1.16, 1.94], p=0.002; I2: 31.02%). Subgroup analysis on delirium assessed at admission indicate independent association (OR 1.40 [1.03, 1.90], p=0.030; I2: 35.19%). Meta-regression indicates that the association between delirium and mortality were not significantly influenced by study-level variations in age, sex [reference: male], hypertension, diabetes, and dementia. CONCLUSION: The presence of delirium is associated with increased risk of mortality in hospitalized older adults with COVID-19.

Thrombocytopenia as a prognostic marker in COVID-19 patients: diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate thrombocytopenia as a prognostic biomarker in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We performed a systematic literature search using PubMed, Embase and EuropePMC. The main outcome was composite poor outcome, a composite of mortality, severity, need for intensive care unit care and invasive mechanical ventilation. There were 8963 patients from 23 studies. Thrombocytopenia occurred in 18% of the patients. Male gender (P = 0.037) significantly reduce the incidence. Thrombocytopenia was associated with composite poor outcome (RR 1.90 (1.43-2.52), P < 0.001; I2: 92.3%). Subgroup analysis showed that thrombocytopenia was associated with mortality (RR 2.34 (1.23-4.45), P < 0.001; I2: 96.8%) and severity (RR 1.61 (1.33-1.96), P < 0.001; I2: 62.4%). Subgroup analysis for cut-off <100 × 109/l showed RR of 1.93 (1.37-2.72), P < 0.001; I2: 83.2%). Thrombocytopenia had a sensitivity of 0.26 (0.18-0.36), specificity of 0.89 (0.84-0.92), positive likelihood ratio of 2.3 (1.6-3.2), negative likelihood ratio of 0.83 (0.75-0.93), diagnostic odds ratio of 3 (2, 4) and area under curve of 0.70 (0.66-0.74) for composite poor outcome. Meta-regression analysis showed that the association between thrombocytopenia and poor outcome did not vary significantly with age, male, lymphocyte, d-dimer, hypertension, diabetes and CKD. Fagan's nomogram showed that the posterior probability of poor outcome was 50% in patients with thrombocytopenia, and 26% in those without thrombocytopenia. The Deek's funnel plot was relatively symmetrical and the quantitative asymmetry test was non-significant (P = 0.14). This study indicates that thrombocytopenia was associated with poor outcome in patients with COVID-19.PROSPERO ID: CRD42020213974.