ReviewLe infezioni in medicina2023
Outcomes of COVID-19 amongst patients with ongoing use of inhaled corticosteroids - a systematic review & meta-analysis.
Review in Le infezioni in medicina, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 14 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: WHO quoted the numbers for the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as of August 2021 were 200 million cases with over 4 million deaths globally. COVID-19 is associated with several respiratory pathologies. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are used to improve lung function by reducing inflammation, edema, mucus secretion, and inhibiting various cytokine activities. However, there is limited data on the effect of ICS usage in patients with COVID-19. In this study, we aim to evaluate the association between the use of ICS and the outcomes in COVID-19 patients compared to standard COVID-19 treatment. Methods: We followed PRISMA guidelines and MOOSE protocol for conducting the systematic review and meta-analysis comparing ICS and standard COVID-19 therapy. A search on PubMed is conducted yielding 270 articles of which 6 manuscripts are finalized for inclusion in the study. Patients with COVID-19 are identified from the studies based on confirmed positive RT-PCR tests. Hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality are selected as the outcomes of our study. Using RevMan 5.3, we performed random-effects models to estimate the pooled effect size (pooled odds ratio), 95% confidence interval (95% CI), and heterogeneity (I Results: Our study involves the comparison of ICS vs Non-ICS for mortality (N= 207,842 vs 166,217), ICU hospitalization (N= 1,084 vs 9,425), and the risk of hospitalization (N= 1,273 vs 1,676).Of the six studies, five reported mortality. We found a higher mortality rate in patients with asthma (60.88%, 107/160) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (68.46%, 382/558) among ICS users. The overall mortality is 7.49% (107/1428). We found that ICS use was associated with higher odds of mortality (OR=1.45 95%CI: 1.10-1.91; p=0.009, I Conclusion: ICS is associated with increased mortality and risk for hospitalization in patients with COVID-19 as compared to standard non-steroid-based COVID-19 therapy. It is crucial for healthcare providers to carefully evaluate the potential risks and benefits of ICS usage in the context of COVID-19 management to optimize patient outcomes and safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.