scholarly journals Smoking is Associated with COVID-19 Progression: A Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roengrudee Patanavanich ◽  
Stanton A. Glantz
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Management ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Smoking Behavior ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
List Type ◽  
Upper Airways ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
Progression Of Disease

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo determine the association between smoking and progression of COVID-19.DesignA meta-analysis of 12 published papers.Data SourcePubMed database was searched on April 6, 2020.Eligibility criteria and data analysisWe included studies reporting smoking behavior of COVID-19 patients and progression of disease. Search terms included “smoking”, “smoker*”, “characteristics”, “risk factors”, “outcomes”, and “COVID-19”, “COVID”, “coronavirus”, “sar cov-2”, “sar cov 2”. There were no language limitations. One author extracted information for each study, screened the abstract or the full text, with questions resolved through discussion among both authors. A random effects meta-analysis was applied.Main Outcome MeasuresThe study outcome was progression of COVID-19 among people who already had the disease.ResultsWe identified 12 papers with a total of 9,025 COVID-19 patients, 878 (9.7%) with severe disease and 495 with a history of smoking (5.5%). The meta-analysis showed a significant association between smoking and progression of COVID-19 (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.49-3.39, p=0.001). Limitations in the 12 papers suggest that the actual risk of smoking may be higher.ConclusionsSmoking is a risk factor for progression of COVID-19, with smokers having higher odds of COVID-19 progression than never smokers. Physicians and public health professionals should collect data on smoking as part of clinical management and add smoking cessation to the list of practices to blunt the COVID-19 pandemic.What is already known on this topicSmoking increases risk and severity of pulmonary infections because of damage to upper airways and a decrease in pulmonary immune function.What this study addsSmoking is associated with COVID-19 severity.Smoking history should be part of clinical management of COVID-19 patients and cessation should be added to the list of practices to blunt the COVID-19 pandemic.

scholarly journals Smoking Is Associated With COVID-19 Progression: A Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (9) ◽  
pp. 1653-1656 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roengrudee Patanavanich ◽  
Stanton A Glantz
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factor ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Smoking Behavior ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Public Health Professionals ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Progression Of Disease ◽  
History Of ◽  
Never Smokers

Abstract Introduction Smoking depresses pulmonary immune function and is a risk factor contracting other infectious diseases and more serious outcomes among people who become infected. This paper presents a meta-analysis of the association between smoking and progression of the infectious disease COVID-19. Methods PubMed was searched on April 28, 2020, with search terms “smoking”, “smoker*”, “characteristics”, “risk factors”, “outcomes”, and “COVID-19”, “COVID”, “coronavirus”, “sar cov-2”, “sar cov 2”. Studies reporting smoking behavior of COVID-19 patients and progression of disease were selected for the final analysis. The study outcome was progression of COVID-19 among people who already had the disease. A random effects meta-analysis was applied. Results We identified 19 peer-reviewed papers with a total of 11,590 COVID-19 patients, 2,133 (18.4%) with severe disease and 731 (6.3%) with a history of smoking. A total of 218 patients with a history of smoking (29.8%) experienced disease progression, compared with 17.6% of non-smoking patients. The meta-analysis showed a significant association between smoking and progression of COVID-19 (OR 1.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-2.59, p = 0.001). Limitations in the 19 papers suggest that the actual risk of smoking may be higher. Conclusions Smoking is a risk factor for progression of COVID-19, with smokers having higher odds of COVID-19 progression than never smokers. Implications Physicians and public health professionals should collect data on smoking as part of clinical management and add smoking cessation to the list of practices to blunt the COVID-19 pandemic.

scholarly journals Occurrence of Typhoid Fever Complications and Their Relation to Duration of Illness Preceding Hospitalization: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. S435-S448 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ligia María Cruz Espinoza ◽  
Ellen McCreedy ◽  
Marianne Holm ◽  
Justin Im ◽  
Ondari D Mogeni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Typhoid Fever ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Strong Association ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Antimicrobial Treatment ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Duration Of Symptoms ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background Complications from typhoid fever disease have been estimated to occur in 10%–15% of hospitalized patients, with evidence of a higher risk in children and when delaying the implementation of effective antimicrobial treatment. We estimated the prevalence of complications in hospitalized patients with culture-confirmed typhoid fever and the effects of delaying the implementation of effective antimicrobial treatment and age on the prevalence and risk of complications. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed using studies in the PubMed database. We rated risk of bias and conducted random-effects meta-analyses. Days of disease at hospitalization (DDA) was used as a surrogate for delaying the implementation of effective antimicrobial treatment. Analyses were stratified by DDA (DDA <10 versus ≥10 mean/median days of disease) and by age (children versus adults). Differences in risk were assessed using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity and publication bias were evaluated with the I2 value and funnel plot analysis, respectively. Results The pooled prevalence of complications estimated among hospitalized typhoid fever patients was 27% (95% CI, 21%–32%; I2 = 90.9%, P < .0001). Patients with a DDA ≥ 10 days presented higher prevalence (36% [95% CI, 29%–43%]) and three times greater risk of severe disease (OR, 3.00 [95% CI, 2.14–4.17]; P < .0001) than patients arriving earlier (16% [95% CI, 13%– 18%]). Difference in prevalence and risk by age groups were not significant. Conclusions This meta-analysis identified a higher overall prevalence of complications than previously reported and a strong association between duration of symptoms prior to hospitalization and risk of serious complications.

scholarly journals Prevalence and predictors of death and severe disease in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 77 studies and 38,000 patients

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0243191
Author(s):  
Kunchok Dorjee ◽  
Hyunju Kim ◽  
Elizabeth Bonomo ◽  
Rinchen Dolma
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
The Us

Introduction Progression of COVID-19 to severe disease and death is insufficiently understood. Objective Summarize the prevalence of risk factors and adverse outcomes and determine their associations in COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized. Methods We searched Medline, Embase and Web of Science for case-series and observational studies of hospitalized COVID-19 patients through August 31, 2020. Data were analyzed by fixed-effects meta-analysis using Shore’s adjusted confidence intervals to address heterogeneity. Results Seventy-seven studies comprising 38906 hospitalized patients met inclusion criteria; 21468 from the US-Europe and 9740 from China. Overall prevalence of death [% (95% CI)] from COVID-19 was 20% (18–23%); 23% (19–27%) in the US and Europe and 11% (7–16%) for China. Of those that died, 85% were aged≥60 years, 66% were males, and 66%, 44%, 39%, 37%, and 27% had hypertension, smoking history, diabetes, heart disease, and chronic kidney disease (CKD), respectively. The case fatality risk [%(95% CI)] were 52% (46–60) for heart disease, 51% (43–59) for COPD, 48% (37–63) for chronic kidney disease (CKD), 39% for chronic liver disease (CLD), 28% (23–36%) for hypertension, and 24% (17–33%) for diabetes. Summary relative risk (sRR) of death were higher for age≥60 years [sRR = 3.6; 95% CI: 3.0–4.4], males [1.3; 1.2–1.4], smoking history [1.3; 1.1–1.6], COPD [1.7; 1.4–2.0], hypertension [1.8; 1.6–2.0], diabetes [1.5; 1.4–1.7], heart disease [2.1; 1.8–2.4], CKD [2.5; 2.1–3.0]. The prevalence of hypertension (55%), diabetes (33%), smoking history (23%) and heart disease (17%) among the COVID-19 hospitalized patients in the US were substantially higher than that of the general US population, suggesting increased susceptibility to infection or disease progression for the individuals with comorbidities. Conclusions Public health screening for COVID-19 can be prioritized based on risk-groups. Appropriately addressing the modifiable risk factors such as smoking, hypertension, and diabetes could reduce morbidity and mortality due to COVID-19; public messaging can be accordingly adapted.

scholarly journals The effect of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on death and severity of disease in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Ghosal ◽  
Jagat J Mukherjee ◽  
B Sinha ◽  
K Gangopadhyay
Keyword(s):  
Angiotensin Converting Enzyme ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
List Type ◽  
Converting Enzyme ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor ◽  
Severity Of Disease ◽  
Receptor Blockers

AbstractAims and MethodsEffect of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) on outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is uncertain. Available evidence is limited to a few retrospective observational studies with small number of patients. We did a meta-analysis to assess the effect of ACEi/ARB in patients with COVID-19 on severity of disease, risk for hospitalisation, and death compared to those not on ACEi/ARB. We searched the Cochrane library, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrial.gov and medRxiv for studies published until 25.04.2020. Inclusion criteria included all studies with patients with confirmed COVID-19 either taking, or not taking, ACEi/ARB. Depending on degree of heterogeneity, fixed or random effect model was selected to calculate effect size (Odds ratio).ResultsSix studies were eligible for this meta-analysis. These included 423 patients on ACEi/ARB, and 1419 not on ACEi/ARB. Compared to patients with COVID-19 not on ACEi/ARB, there was a statistically significant 43% reduction (OR 0.57, CI: 0.37–0.88, I2: 0.000) in the odds of death in those on ACEi/ARB. There was a statistically non-significant 38% reduction (OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.31–1.23, I2=70.36) in the odds of developing severe disease and 19% reduction (OR 0.81; 95% CI: 0.42–1.55, I2: 0.000) in the odds of hospitalisation among those on ACEi/ARB.DiscussionIt is safe to use ACEi/ARB in patients with COVID-19 requiring these medications for associated comorbidities. Although limited by confounding factors typical of a meta-analysis of retrospective observational studies, our data suggests that use of these medications may reduce the odds of death.ConclusionOur meta-analysis of the updated studies on SARS-CoV-2 reassures the medical fraternity on the use of and continuation of ACEi/ARB, supporting all recent recommendations.Evidence before this studyThe postulated dual role of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has created a dilemma for clinicians.On the one hand, there is speculation that by upregulating ACE2, ACEi/ARBs might increase the risk and severity of COVID-19.On the other hand, there is evidence that downregulation of ACE2 can mediate acute lung injury. Further evidence is urgently needed to guide clinicians in the use of ACEi/ARB in patients with COVID-19 with co-morbidities.What does this article addOur meta-analysis, which is the first to assess the effect of use of ACEi/ARB in patients with COVID-19, reports that use of ACEi/ARB statistically significantly reduced the risk of death, with a trend towards reduction in risk of severe disease and hospitalisation compared to those who were not on ACEi/ARB.Further information from on-going RCTs shall take time to fruition; in the interim, based on these findings, clinicians can safely continue to use ACEi/ARB in patients with COVID-19 with comorbidities.Review CriteriaA web-based search was conducted using the Cochrane library, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrial.gov and medRxiv using specific keywords.Narrowing down of the citations was done based on full text availability and a set of pre-determined inclusion criteria.Meta-analysis was conducted on the pooled data comparing ACEi/ARB group versus the non-ACEi/ARB group on death, severity of disease and hospitalization using the CMA software version 3, Biostat Inc., Englewood, NJ, USA.Effect size was reported as odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval and the degree of heterogeneity of the pooled data.Message for the clinicThere is no indication from present evidence to withhold or withdraw ACEi/ARB in patients with SARS-CoV-2.

scholarly journals Safety and efficacy of total parenteral nutrition versus total enteral nutrition for patients with severe acute pancreatitis: a meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (9) ◽  
pp. 3948-3958 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wen Li ◽  
Jixi Liu ◽  
Shuqiao Zhao ◽  
Jingtao Li
Keyword(s):  
Acute Pancreatitis ◽  
Enteral Nutrition ◽  
Parenteral Nutrition ◽  
Total Parenteral Nutrition ◽  
Severe Acute Pancreatitis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
Total Enteral Nutrition

Objective This study was performed to systematically compare the safety and efficacy of total enteral nutrition (TEN) and total parenteral nutrition (TPN) for patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). Methods The PubMed database was searched up to January 2017, and nine studies were retrieved. These studies were selected according to specific eligibility criteria. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed, and the study design, interventions, participant characteristics, and final results were then analyzed by Review Manager 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Results Nine relevant randomized controlled trials involving 500 patients (244 patients in the TEN group and 256 patients in the TPN group) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed a significantly lower mortality rate in the TEN than TPN group [odds ratio (OR), 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.18–0.54]. The duration of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the TEN than TPN group (mean difference, −0.59; 95% CI, −2.56–1.38). Compared with TPN, TEN had a lower risk of pancreatic infection and related complications (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22–0.77), organ failure (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.06–0.52), and surgical intervention (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05–0.62). Conclusions This meta-analysis indicates that TEN is safer and more effective than TPN for patients with SAP. When both TEN and TPN have a role in the management of SAP, TEN is the preferred option.

scholarly journals Pelvic Floor Morbidity Following Vaginal Delivery versus Cesarean Delivery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 1652
Author(s):  
Juan A. Barca ◽  
Coral Bravo ◽  
Maria P. Pintado-Recarte ◽  
Ángel Asúnsolo ◽  
Ignacio Cueto-Hernández ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pelvic Floor ◽  
Cesarean Delivery ◽  
Vaginal Delivery ◽  
Pelvic Floor Disorders ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pelvic Organ ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Mesh Terms ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective: To compare pelvic floor disorders between vaginal delivery (VD) and cesarean delivery (CD). Methods: For this study, a PUBMED database search was used, utilizing a combination of relevant medical subjects’ headings (MeSH) terms, with the following keywords: “Pelvic floor disorders” or “Pelvic floor morbidity” and “Delivery”. Search limits were articles in English or Spanish, about women, published from December 2009 to December 2019. The STATA 16 package was used for meta-analysis and data heterogeneity assessment. Results: Thirteen studies meeting eligibility criteria were identified comprising 1,597,303 participants. Abstract: Pelvic floor morbidity prevalence was Urinary Incontinence (UI) 27.9% (5411 patients in 7 studies with reported cases), Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) 14.2% (6019 patients in 8 studies with reported cases), and Anal Incontinence (AI) 0.4% (1,589,740 patients in 5 studies with reported cases). Our meta-analyses revealed significantly higher rates of all three morbidities and overall morbidity in the VD versus CD group: UI OR = 2.17, 95% CI 1.64–2.87, p for heterogeneity ≤ 0.0001, I2 = 84%; POP OR = 3.28, 95% CI 1.91–5.63, p for heterogenicity ≤ 0.043, I2 = 63%; AI OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.32–1.77; p for heterogeneity ≤ 0.291, I2 = 20%; and overall morbidity (OR = 2.17, 95% CI 1.64–2.87; p for heterogeneity ≤ 0.0001, I2 = 84%). Conclusion: Vaginal delivery is directly related to the appearance of pelvic floor disorders, mainly UI, POP, and AI. The risk of POP should be taken into higher consideration after vaginal delivery and postpartum follow-up should be performed, to identify and/or treat it at the earliest stages.

scholarly journals Epidemiological Risk Factors Associated with Death and Severe Disease in Patients Suffering From COVID-19: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunchok Dorjee ◽  
Hyunju Kim
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
The Us

AbstractIntroductionProgression of COVID-19 to severe disease and death is insufficiently understood.ObjectiveSummarize the prevalence adverse outcomes, risk factors, and association of risk factors with adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients.MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase and Web of Science for case-series and observational studies of hospitalized COVID-19 patients through May 22, 2020. Data were analyzed by fixed-effects meta-analysis, using Shore’s adjusted confidence intervals to address heterogeneity.ResultsForty-four studies comprising 20594 hospitalized patients met inclusion criteria; 12591 from the US-Europe and 7885 from China. Pooled prevalence of death [%(95% CI)] was 18% (15-22%). Of those that died, 76% were aged≥ 60 years, 68% were males, and 63%, 38%, and 29% had hypertension, diabetes and heart disease, respectively. The case fatality risk [%(95% CI)] were 62% (48-78) for heart disease, 51% (36-71) for COPD, and 42% (34-50) for age≥ 60 years and 49% (33-71) for chronic kidney disease (CKD). Summary relative risk (sRR) of death were higher for age≥ 60 years [sRR=3.8; 95% CI: 2.9-4.8; n=12 studies], males [1.3; 1.2-1.5; 17], smoking history [1.9; 1.1-3.3; n=6], COPD [2.0; 1.6-2.4; n=9], hypertension [1.8; 1.7-2.0; n=14], diabetes [1.5; 1.4-1.7; n=16], heart disease [2.0; 1.7-2.4; 16] and CKD [2.0; 1.3-3.1; 8]. The overall prevalence of hypertension (55%), diabetes (31%) and heart disease (16%) among COVODI-19 patients in the US were substantially higher than the general US population.ConclusionsPublic health screening for COVID-19 can be prioritized based on risk-groups. A higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors in COVID-19 patients can suggest increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 acquisition in the population.

scholarly journals Systematic review of topical interventions for the management of odour in patients with chronic wounds or malignant fungating wounds: a study protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 124
Author(s):  
Karen Butler ◽  
Akke Vellinga ◽  
John D. Ivory ◽  
Stephen Cunningham ◽  
Lokesh Joshi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Wounds ◽  
List Item ◽  
Health Care Systems ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Third Party ◽  
List Type ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Third Party Intervention ◽  
Care Systems

Background: Chronic wounds including venous, arterial, diabetic and pressure ulcers affect up to 2.21 per 1000 population. Malignant fungating wounds affect up to 6.6% of oncology patients. These wounds impact patients and health care systems significantly. Microbes colonising chronic wounds can produce volatile molecules with unpleasant odours. Wound odour adversely affects quality of life, yet management strategies are inconsistent. Clinicians express uncertainty regarding the current range of odour management agents, which therefore requires evaluation for effectiveness.    Objective: To determine the effects of topical agents in the management of odour in patients with chronic and malignant fungating wounds. Methods: Searches of Embase, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the clinicaltrials.gov and WudracT trial registries from inception to present will be conducted without language limits. Randomised controlled trials including adults with venous, arterial, mixed arterio-venous, diabetic, decubitus or malignant fungating wounds, investigating topical agents to manage odour are eligible. Reference lists of included studies and identified systematic reviews will be scanned, and unpublished studies will be sought in the BASE database, in conference proceedings and through contacting authors. Two reviewers will independently scan titles/abstracts and full text articles against predetermined eligibility criteria, with discrepancies resolved by discussion between reviewers or through third-party intervention. Two reviewers will independently extract data from included studies. Disagreements will be resolved by discussion between reviewers or through third-party intervention. Bias risk and evidence quality will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system. Meta-analysis will be applied where appropriate. Otherwise, data will be synthesised narratively. Discussion: Wound odour management typically takes a trial-and-error approach. Clinicians are critical of odour management agent effectiveness. This review will evaluate the range of available agents to inform practice and research. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021267668 (14/08/2021)

scholarly journals Risk and protective factors for acute mountain sickness: a meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergio Recalde ◽  
Leire Alargunsoro ◽  
Fermin I. Milagro ◽  
Ricardo Ibañez ◽  
Andrea Villegas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Protective Factors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Acute Mountain Sickness ◽  
Risk And Protective Factors ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Younger Age ◽  
History Of ◽  
Rapid Ascent ◽  
Mountain Sickness

Abstract BackgroundCurrently, many people reach 3000-meter summits or greater. Some of these climbers suffer from acute mountain sickness (AMS), while others remain symptom-free. Some risk factors for AMS are well defined, such as lack of pre-acclimatization, rapid ascent, maximum altitude, and resilience at low altitude. However, there are other poorly described associated factors, such as sex, age, smoking, body mass index, medication use, and awareness or history of AMS. The objective of this meta-analysis was to establish the risk and protective factors associated with AMS. MethodsPubMed, UNIKA, and Scopus databases were searched in July 2020 for articles to include in the analysis. AMS was separately evaluated by the Lake Louise Score (LLS) and Hackett’s Score (HS). After screening and application of eligibility criteria, 14 articles were included in the meta-analysis (LLS = 12 and HS = 2). ResultsA total of 18,938 participants were included in the study with 17,450 in the LLS group and 1,488 in the HS group. In the LLS group, smoking (odds ratio [OR] 0.76 [0.63-0.92]; χ2 = 10.3; I2 = 61.2%), history of AMS (OR 1.16 [1.03-1.32]; χ2 = 12.2; I2 = 67%), altitude preexposure (OR 0.68 [0.5-0.91]; χ2 = 22.21; I2 = 82%; τ2 = 0.06), and maximum altitude (OR 2.01 (1.07-3.77) (χ2 = 19.15. I2 = 89.6%. τ2 = 0.26) were statistically significant. In the HS group, age >35 years (OR 0.72 [0.52-0.99]; χ2 = 2.14; I2 = 6.7%) and a history of AMS (OR 8.2 [3.28-20.54]; χ2 = 3.7; I2 = 73%; τ2 = 0.32) were found to be statistically significant. ConclusionsThis study suggests that younger age, non-smoking, history of AMS, nonacclimatization, and hiking to a high maximum altitude (>2500m) increases the possibility of suffering from AMS.

scholarly journals Meta-Analysis: COVID-19 Disease Severity Correlates with Smoking Status

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edouard Lansiaux ◽  
Pierre-Philippe Pébaÿ ◽  
Jean-Laurent Picard ◽  
Joachim Son-Forget
Keyword(s):  
Disease Severity ◽  
Smoking Status ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Current Smoker ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
The Novel ◽  
The Us ◽  
O 10

The novel COVID-19 disease is a contagious acute respiratory infectious disease whose causative agent has been demonstrated to be a new virus of the coronavirus family, SARS- CoV-2. Multiple studies have already reported that risk factors for severe disease include older age and the presence of at least one of several underlying health conditions. However, a recent physiopathological report and the French COVID-19 scientific council have postulated a protective effect of tobacco smoking. Thanks to a meta-analysis, we have been able to demonstrate the statistical significance in this regard of twelve series from China, France and in the US, reporting three different smoking status (current smoker,former smoker, with a smoking history) as well as disease severity (with respectively odds-ratio of 1.78 [1.08-3.10], 4.60 [3.13-7.17], 2.74 [0.63-5.89]). Subsequently and using a Bayesian approach we have established that past, and present smoking is associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes. Finally, we refute claims linking general population smoking status (N=O(10^8) or O(10^9)) to much smaller disease course series (N=O(10^4)). The latter point in particular is presented to stimulate academic discussion, and must be further investigated by well-designed studies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document