1.
Efficacy of telemedicine for the management of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Kuan, PX, Chan, WK, Fern Ying, DK, Rahman, MAA, Peariasamy, KM, Lai, NM, Mills, NL, Anand, A
The Lancet. Digital health. 2022;4(9):e676-e691
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Digital health interventions (DHIs) have the potential to transform the diagnosis, monitoring, and management of chronic cardiovascular conditions. Many DHIs are widely deployed in health systems across the world, with adoption rapidly increasing in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The aim of this study was to provide an updated synthesis of evidence on the effectiveness of telemedicine in the management of cardiovascular diseases. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of seventy-two studies with a total of 127,869 participants, of whom 82,818 (65%) were males and 45051 (35%) were females. Results showed reduced cardiovascular-related mortality and hospitalisation for patients with heart failure who received combined remote telemedicine monitoring and consultation compared with usual care. Authors conclude that the findings of their study suggest a definite role for telemedicine in the management of heart failure, particularly in early treatment optimisation, but the value is less clear for long-term management strategy and other cardiovascular diseases. Thus, future research should focus to address the application of these technologies to unselected populations and longer-term effectiveness.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Telemedicine has been increasingly integrated into chronic disease management through remote patient monitoring and consultation, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting effectiveness of telemedicine interventions for the management of patients with cardiovascular conditions. METHODS In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library from database inception to Jan 18, 2021. We included randomised controlled trials and observational or cohort studies that evaluated the effects of a telemedicine intervention on cardiovascular outcomes for people either at risk (primary prevention) of cardiovascular disease or with established (secondary prevention) cardiovascular disease, and, for the meta-analysis, we included studies that evaluated the effects of a telemedicine intervention on cardiovascular outcomes and risk factors. We excluded studies if there was no clear telemedicine intervention described or if cardiovascular or risk factor outcomes were not clearly reported in relation to the intervention. Two reviewers independently assessed and extracted data from trials and observational and cohort studies using a standardised template. Our primary outcome was cardiovascular-related mortality. We evaluated study quality using Cochrane risk-of-bias and Newcastle-Ottawa scales. The systematic review and the meta-analysis protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021221010) and the Malaysian National Medical Research Register (NMRR-20-2471-57236). FINDINGS 72 studies, including 127 869 participants, met eligibility criteria, with 34 studies included in meta-analysis (n=13 269 with 6620 [50%] receiving telemedicine). Combined remote monitoring and consultation for patients with heart failure was associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular-related mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0·83 [95% CI 0·70 to 0·99]; p=0·036) and hospitalisation for a cardiovascular cause (0·71 [0·58 to 0·87]; p=0·0002), mostly in studies with short-term follow-up. There was no effect of telemedicine on all-cause hospitalisation (1·02 [0·94 to 1·10]; p=0·71) or mortality (0·90 [0·77 to 1·06]; p=0·23) in these groups, and no benefits were observed with remote consultation in isolation. Small reductions were observed for systolic blood pressure (mean difference -3·59 [95% CI -5·35 to -1·83] mm Hg; p<0·0001) by remote monitoring and consultation in secondary prevention populations. Small reductions were also observed in body-mass index (mean difference -0·38 [-0·66 to -0·11] kg/m2; p=0·0064) by remote consultation in primary prevention settings. INTERPRETATION Telemedicine including both remote disease monitoring and consultation might reduce short-term cardiovascular-related hospitalisation and mortality risk among patients with heart failure. Future research should evaluate the sustained effects of telemedicine interventions. FUNDING The British Heart Foundation.
2.
Vitamin D supplementation for the treatment of COVID-19: a living systematic review.
Stroehlein, JK, Wallqvist, J, Iannizzi, C, Mikolajewska, A, Metzendorf, MI, Benstoem, C, Meybohm, P, Becker, M, Skoetz, N, Stegemann, M, et al
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2021;5:CD015043
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
This study is part of a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating treatments and therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Therapeutic interventions to treat COVID-19 are being investigated with immense emphasis. Recently, vitamin D supplementation for treatment of COVID-19 gained attention, since studies suggested an association between vitamin D deficiency and risk or prognosis of the disease. The aim of this study was to assess whether vitamin D supplementation is effective and safe for the treatment of COVID-19 This study is a living systematic review of seven records (three randomised controlled studies – 356 adult participants). Results for the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation for participants with COVID-19 are inconclusive. Moreover, inconsistency in the reporting of adverse and serious adverse events impeded evaluation of safety of vitamin D supplementation. Authors conclude that to elucidate the effectiveness and safety of vitamin D supplementation for individuals with COVID-19, more randomised controlled trials are needed.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The role of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment for COVID-19 has been a subject of considerable discussion. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of vitamin D supplementation for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials is required. OBJECTIVES To assess whether vitamin D supplementation is effective and safe for the treatment of COVID-19 in comparison to an active comparator, placebo, or standard of care alone, and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 11 March 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies investigating preventive effects, or studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following prioritised outcome categories: individuals with moderate or severe COVID-19: all-cause mortality, clinical status, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events, and for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease: all-cause mortality, development of severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS We identified three RCTs with 356 participants, of whom 183 received vitamin D. In accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) clinical progression scale, two studies investigated participants with moderate or severe disease, and one study individuals with mild or asymptomatic disease. The control groups consisted of placebo treatment or standard of care alone. Effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease We included two studies with 313 participants. Due to substantial clinical and methodological diversity of both studies, we were not able to pool data. Vitamin D status was unknown in one study, whereas the other study reported data for vitamin D deficient participants. One study administered multiple doses of oral calcifediol at days 1, 3 and 7, whereas the other study gave a single high dose of oral cholecalciferol at baseline. We assessed one study with low risk of bias for effectiveness outcomes, and the other with some concerns about randomisation and selective reporting. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge (313 participants) We found two studies reporting data for this outcome. One study reported no deaths when treated with vitamin D out of 50 participants, compared to two deaths out of 26 participants in the control group (Risk ratio (RR) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.13). The other study reported nine deaths out of 119 individuals in the vitamin D group, whereas six participants out of 118 died in the placebo group (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.04]. We are very uncertain whether vitamin D has an effect on all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (very low-certainty evidence). Clinical status assessed by the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (237 participants) We found one study reporting data for this outcome. Nine out of 119 participants needed invasive mechanical ventilation when treated with vitamin D, compared to 17 out of 118 participants in the placebo group (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.13). Vitamin D supplementation may decrease need for invasive mechanical ventilation, but the evidence is uncertain (low-certainty evidence). Quality of life We did not find data for quality of life. Safety of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease We did not include data from one study, because assessment of serious adverse events was not described and we are concerned that data might have been inconsistently measured. This study reported vomiting in one out of 119 participants immediately after vitamin D intake (RR 2.98, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.30). We are very uncertain whether vitamin D supplementation is associated with higher risk for adverse events (very low-certainty). Effectiveness and safety of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and asymptomatic or mild disease We found one study including 40 individuals, which did not report our prioritised outcomes, but instead data for viral clearance, inflammatory markers, and vitamin D serum levels. The authors reported no events of hypercalcaemia, but recording and assessment of further adverse events remains unclear. Authors administered oral cholecalciferol in daily doses for at least 14 days, and continued with weekly doses if vitamin D blood levels were > 50 ng/mL. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment of COVID-19. The evidence for the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation for the treatment of COVID-19 is very uncertain. Moreover, we found only limited safety information, and were concerned about consistency in measurement and recording of these outcomes. There was substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity of included studies, mainly because of different supplementation strategies, formulations, vitamin D status of participants, and reported outcomes. There is an urgent need for well-designed and adequately powered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with an appropriate randomisation procedure, comparability of study arms and preferably double-blinding. We identified 21 ongoing and three completed studies without published results, which indicates that these needs will be addressed and that our findings are subject to change in the future. Due to the living approach of this work, we will update the review periodically.
3.
Case report and systematic review suggest that children may experience similar long-term effects to adults after clinical COVID-19.
Ludvigsson, JF
Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992). 2021;110(3):914-921
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
The long-term effects of COVID-19 is becoming increasingly documented in adults. Symptoms such as fatigue, headache and depression have all been reported, however data on the possible long-term effects of COVID-19 in children is scarce. The aim of this systematic review and case report was to describe the long-term effects of COVID-19 in five children and support this with other reports in the literature. The results showed that of the five case reports of long COVID, four were girls aged 9-15 years. All subjects reported symptoms lasting between 6-8 months. Most common symptoms were fatigue, difficulty breathing and heart issues. The systematic literature review did not find any publications which documented long COVID in children. It was concluded that children may experience long COVID symptoms and girls may be more susceptible. This study could be used by healthcare professionals to understand that children may also be affected by long COVID and that patients should be monitored for symptoms for at least 6-8 months.
Abstract
AIM: Persistent symptoms in adults after COVID-19 are emerging and the term long COVID is increasingly appearing in the literature. However, paediatric data are scarce. METHODS This paper contains a case report of five Swedish children and the long-term symptoms reported by their parents. It also includes a systematic literature review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases and the medRxiv/bioRxiv pre-print servers up to 2 November 2020. RESULTS The five children with potential long COVID had a median age of 12 years (range 9-15) and four were girls. They had symptoms for 6-8 months after their clinical diagnoses of COVID-19. None were hospitalised at diagnosis, but one was later admitted for peri-myocarditis. All five children had fatigue, dyspnoea, heart palpitations or chest pain, and four had headaches, difficulties concentrating, muscle weakness, dizziness and sore throats. Some had improved after 6-8 months, but they all suffered from fatigue and none had fully returned to school. The systematic review identified 179 publications and 19 of these were deemed relevant and read in detail. None contained any information on long COVID in children. CONCLUSION Children may experience similar long COVID symptoms to adults and females may be more affected.
4.
Prevalence, Severity and Mortality associated with COPD and Smoking in patients with COVID-19: A Rapid Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Alqahtani, JS, Oyelade, T, Aldhahir, AM, Alghamdi, SM, Almehmadi, M, Alqahtani, AS, Quaderi, S, Mandal, S, Hurst, JR
PloS one. 2020;15(5):e0233147
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
This meta-analysis reviewed 15 studies covering a total of 2473 confirmed COVID-19 patients to summarise the potential risk factors for smokers and patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a dysfunction of the lung associated with limitation in airflow. They found that neither COPD or smoking increased the initial risk of contracting COVID-19 with only 2% and 9% respectively of the cases falling into these categories. However, both groups had increased risk of developing more servere forms of COVID-19 requiring hospitalisation, admission to Intensive Care Units (ICU), mechanical ventilation, and ultimately death, with a much higher mortality rate of 60% versus other patients. Current smokers were also shown to have double the risk of complications versus ex-smokers. The most severe cases were generally in the older age brackets, with coexisting comorbidities and a hypothesized greater amount of lung damage. Both groups showed signs of acute inflammation and had a much slower recovery compared to non-smokers and patients without COPD. Despite the low prevalence of these groups contracting COVID-19, these people should be considered vulnerable because of the severity of symptoms and greater burden on healthcare.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an evolving infectious disease that dramatically spread all over the world in the early part of 2020. No studies have yet summarized the potential severity and mortality risks caused by COVID-19 in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and we update information in smokers. METHODS We systematically searched electronic databases from inception to March 24, 2020. Data were extracted by two independent authors in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Study quality was assessed using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We synthesized a narrative from eligible studies and conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model to calculate pooled prevalence rates and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). RESULTS In total, 123 abstracts were screened and 61 full-text manuscripts were reviewed. A total of 15 studies met the inclusion criteria, which included a total of 2473 confirmed COVID-19 patients. All studies were included in the meta-analysis. The crude case fatality rate of COVID-19 was 7.4%. The pooled prevalence rates of COPD patients and smokers in COVID-19 cases were 2% (95% CI, 1%-3%) and 9% (95% CI, 4%-14%) respectively. COPD patients were at a higher risk of more severe disease (risk of severity = 63%, (22/35) compared to patients without COPD 33.4% (409/1224) [calculated RR, 1.88 (95% CI, 1.4-2.4)]. This was associated with higher mortality (60%). Our results showed that 22% (31/139) of current smokers and 46% (13/28) of ex-smokers had severe complications. The calculated RR showed that current smokers were 1.45 times more likely [95% CI: 1.03-2.04] to have severe complications compared to former and never smokers. Current smokers also had a higher mortality rate of 38.5%. CONCLUSION Although COPD prevalence in COVID-19 cases was low in current reports, COVID-19 infection was associated with substantial severity and mortality rates in COPD. Compared to former and never smokers, current smokers were at greater risk of severe complications and higher mortality rate. Effective preventive measures are required to reduce COVID-19 risk in COPD patients and current smokers.