Summary The disease course of COVID‐19 varies from asymptomatic infection to critical condition leading to mortality. Identification of prognostic factors is important for prevention and early treatment. We aimed to examine whether obesity is a risk factor for the critical condition in COVID‐19 patients by performing a meta‐analysis. The review protocol was registered onto PROSPERO (CRD42020185980). A systematic search was performed in five scientific databases between 1 January and 11 May 2020. After selection, 24 retrospective cohort studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. We calculated pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in meta‐analysis. Obesity was a significant risk factor for intensive care unit (ICU) admission in a homogenous dataset (OR = 1.21, CI: 1.002‐1.46; I2 = 0.0%) as well as for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (OR = 2.05, CI: 1.16‐3.64; I2 = 34.86%) in COVID‐19. Comparing body mass index (BMI) classes with each other, we found that a higher BMI always carries a higher risk. Obesity may serve as a clinical predictor for adverse outcomes; therefore, the inclusion of BMI in prognostic scores and improvement of guidelines for the intensive care of patients with elevated BMI are highly recommended.

Background: COVID-19 is a serious and potentially deadly disease. Early diagnosis of infected individuals will play an important role in stopping its further escalation. The present gold standard for sampling is the nasopharyngeal swab method. However, several recent papers suggested that saliva-based testing is a promising alternative that could simplify and accelerate COVID-19 diagnosis. Objectives: Our aim was to conduct a meta-analysis on the reliability and consistency of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA detection in saliva specimens. Methods: We have reported our meta-analysis according to the Cochrane Handbook. We searched the Cochrane Library, Embase, Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science and clinical trial registries for eligible studies published between 1 January and 25 April 2020. The number of positive tests and the total number of tests conducted were collected as raw data. The proportion of positive tests in the pooled data were calculated by score confidence-interval estimation with the Freeman–Tukey transformation. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 measure and the χ 2 -test. Results: The systematic search revealed 96 records after removal of duplicates. Twenty-six records were included for qualitative analysis and 5 records for quantitative synthesis. We found 91% (CI 80–99%) sensitivity for saliva tests and 98% (CI 89–100%) sensitivity for nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) tests in previously confirmed COVID-19 patients, with moderate heterogeneity among the studies. Additionally, we identified 18 registered, ongoing clinical trials of saliva-based tests for detection of the virus. Conclusion: Saliva tests offer a promising alternative to NPS for COVID-19 diagnosis. However, further diagnostic accuracy studies are needed to improve their specificity and sensitivity.

No abstract

No abstract

Despite the growing knowledge of the clinicopathological features of COVID-19, the correlation between early changes in the laboratory parameters and the clinical outcomes of patients is not entirely understood. In this study, we aimed to assess the prognostic value of early laboratory parameters in COVID-19. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis based on the available literature in five databases. The last search was on July 26, 2020, with key terms related to COVID-19. Eligible studies contained original data of at least ten infected patients and reported on baseline laboratory parameters of patients. We calculated weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals. 93 and 78 studies were included in quantitative and qualitative syntheses, respectively. Higher baseline total white blood cell count (WBC), C-reactive protein (CRP), lactate-dehydrogenase (LDH), creatine kinase (CK), D-dimer and lower absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) (WMDALC = − 0.35 × 109/L [CI − 0.43, − 0.27], p < 0.001, I2 = 94.2%; < 0.8 × 109/L, ORALC = 3.74 [CI 1.77, 7.92], p = 0.001, I2 = 65.5%) were all associated with higher mortality rate. On admission WBC, ALC, D-dimer, CRP, LDH, and CK changes could serve as alarming prognostic factors. The correct interpretation of laboratory abnormalities can guide therapeutic decisions, especially in early identification of potentially critical cases. This meta-analysis should help to allocate resources and save lives by enabling timely intervention.

See "Mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 increases with unsaturated fat and may be reduced by early calcium and albumin supplementation," by El-Kurdi B, Khatua B, Rood C, et al, on page 1015.

Background: The most common pre-existing liver disease, the metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) formerly named as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), may have a negative impact on the severity of COVID-19. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate if MAFLD or NAFLD are associated with a more severe disease course of COVID-19.Methods: A systematic search was performed in five databases for studies comparing severity, the rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality of COVID-19 patients with and without MAFLD or NAFLD. In meta-analysis, pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.Results: Altogether, we included nine studies in our quantitative and qualitative synthesis. MAFLD was associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19 compared to the non-MAFLD group (28 vs. 13%, respectively; OR = 2.61, CI: 1.75–3.91). Similarly, in the NAFLD vs. non-NAFLD comparison, NAFLD proved to be a risk factor as well (36 vs. 12%, respectively; OR = 5.22, CI: 1.94–14.03). On the other hand, NAFLD was not associated with an increased risk of ICU admission (24 vs. 7%, respectively; OR = 2.29, CI: 0.79–6.63). We were unable to perform meta-analysis to investigate the association of MAFLD with the rate of ICU admission and with mortality.Conclusion: In conclusion, patients with MAFLD and NAFLD showed a more severe clinical picture in COVID-19. Our results support the importance of close monitoring of COVID-19 patients with MAFLD. Further research is needed to explore the cause of increased severity of COVID-19 in MAFLD.

Dear Editor, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral infection caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with a mortality rate of 3-7% [1]. The high mortality results from fulminant pneumonia leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiple organ failure [2, 3]. Initial reports suggest that comorbidities cause a more severe course of infection and a poorer prognosis [4, 5]. Considering the fast spread and high mortality of COVID-19, it is necessary to understand the possible risk factors affecting its progression. We aimed to perform a systematic search to evaluate the potential role of all reported comorbidities on the disease course. Details of our report are provided in Supplementary file 1. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus between 01/01/2020 and 05/11/2020. The main outcomes were mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and severity. Definitions of the investigated outcomes are available in Supplementary file 2, Table 2. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to objectify the association between comorbidities and the outcomes by the random-effects model. The study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020176781). Of 33,987 records screened, 61 cohort studies with 31,089 (median 162; IQR: 103-338) patients were included in the meta-analysis. The overall mortality rate was 10.0%, 19.9% of patients needed intensive, while the reported severity was 24.0%. Underlying chronic