Comparison of critically ill COVID-19 and influenza patients with acute respiratory failure

Differences in clinical characteristics between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and influenza: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic has brought major challenges to the global health system, and influenza is also a problem that cannot be ignored. We aimed to explore and compare the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 and influenza to deepen the understanding of these two diseases and provide some guidance for clinicians to make differential diagnoses. We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for articles and performed a meta-analysis using Stata 14.0 with a random-effects model. This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. One hundred articles involving 226,913 COVID-19 patients and 201,617 influenza patients were included, and all the articles included patients with these two diseases as experimental and control groups. Compared to influenza, COVID-19 was more common among men (OR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.23-1.74) and people with a higher body mass index (MD = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.09-1.77). The proportion of current smokers among COVID-19 patients was lower than that among influenza patients (OR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.18-0.33). Patients with COVID-19 had longer stays in the hospital (MD = 3.20, 95% CI: 2.58-3.82) and ICU (MD = 3.10, 95% CI: 1.44-4.76), required mechanical ventilation more frequently (OR = 2.30, 95% CI: 1.77-3.00), and had higher mortality (OR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.93-2.55). We also found significant differences in some blood parameters between the two groups of patients. Upper respiratory symptoms were more obvious in influenza patients, and the proportion of comorbidities was higher than that among COVID-19 patients. There are some differences in the major characteristics, symptoms, laboratory findings and comorbidities between COVID-19 patients and influenza patients. COVID-19 patients often require more medical resources and have worse clinical outcomes.

Differences of the Chest Images Between Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Patients and Influenza Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and influenza are two infectious diseases that can pose a great threat to human health. We aimed to compare the differences in chest images between patients with COVID-19 and influenza to deepen the understanding of these two diseases. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for articles published before December 25, 2023, and performed a meta-analysis using Stata 14.0 with a random-effects model. The study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Twenty-six articles with 2,159 COVID-19 patients and 1,568 influenza patients were included in the meta-analysis. By comparing chest computed tomography (CT) and chest X-ray, we found that COVID-19 patients had more peripheral lung lesions (OR=3.66, 95% CI: 1.84-7.31). Although COVID-19 patients had more bilateral lung involvement (OR=1.74, 95% CI: 0.90-3.38) and less unilateral lung involvement (OR=0.67, 95% CI: 0.44-1.02), these two results were not statistically significant. Patients with COVID-19 showed more ground-glass opacities (OR=2.83, 95% CI: 1.85-4.32), reverse halo signs (OR=3.47, 95% CI: 2.37-5.08), interlobular septal thickening (OR=2.16, 95% CI: 1.55-3.01), vascular enlargement (OR=5.00, 95% CI: 1.80-13.85) and crazy-paving patterns (OR=2.63, 95% CI: 1.57-4.41) on chest images than patients with influenza. We also found that compared with influenza patients, pleural effusion was rare in COVID-19 patients (OR=0.15, 95% CI: 0.07-0.31). Conclusions: There are some differences in the manifestations and distributions of lesions between patients with COVID-19 and influenza on chest images, which is helpful to distinguish these two infectious diseases.

Narrative review of factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 coinfection in Middle Eastern countries and the need to vaccinate against preventable diseases

This review evaluated the frequency of, and outcomes associated with, bacterial, fungal, and viral coinfection with SARS-CoV-2 in Middle Eastern countries via a PubMed search through February 2023. Ninety articles reported bacterial (n = 57), fungal (n = 32), and viral (n = 32) coinfections. High frequencies of coinfection with COVID-19 were identified, with rates and outcomes varying by setting, pathogen, surveillance/detection method, population characteristics, and drug-resistance status. Mortality rates were higher in patients with community-acquired (10.0 -42.9 %) and hospital-acquired (51.5 -66 %) bacterial coinfection versus those without (10.5 -21.7 %). Outcomes were worse with than without fungal coinfection, and fatality rates with mucormycosis coinfection reached 66.7 %. Outcomes with viral coinfection were highly variable; however, some data suggested a positive corelation between COVID-19 severity and influenza A and adenovirus coinfection. The negative outcomes associated with bacterial, fungal and some viral coinfections in individuals with COVID-19 support regular vaccination against vaccine-preventable diseases caused by these pathogens, especially among at-risk populations.

Association between PaO2/(FiO2*PEEP) ratio and in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients: A reanalysis of published data from Peru using PaO2/(FiO2*PEEP) ratio in place of PaO2/FaO2 ratio

P/FP [PaO2/(FiO2*PEEP)] is associated with in-hospital mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, to the best of our knowledge, the association between P/FP after 24 hours of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and in-hospital mortality in patients with ARDS due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) remained unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between the P/FP after 24 hours of IMV and in-hospital mortality in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19. We reanalyzed previously published data from Peru. Hueda-Zavaleta et al conducted a retrospective cohort study between April 2020 and April 2021 in southern Peru. A total of 200 hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring IMV were included in this analysis. We used Cox proportional hazard regression models and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis to investigate the effect of P/FP after 24 hours of IMV on in-hospital mortality. We used a restricted cubic spline regression and a two-piecewise Cox proportional hazards model to explore the relationship between P/FP after 24 hours of IMV and in-hospital mortality in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19. Of the 200 patients, 51 (25.50%) died in hospital. The median P/FP was 20.45 mm Hg/cmH2O [interquartile range 15.79-25.21 mm Hg/cmH2O], with a range of 5.67 mm Hg/cmH2O to 51.21 mm Hg/cmH2O. Based on the P/FP ratio, patients were equally divided into 2 groups (low group [P/FP < 20.50 mm Hg/cmH2O] and high group [P/FP ≥ 20.50 mm Hg/cmH2O]). In-hospital mortality was lower in the high P/FP group than in the low P/FP group (12 [12%] vs 39 [39%]; unadjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17-0.63; adjusted HR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.02-0.47). We also found a nonlinear relationship between P/FP and in-hospital mortality. After adjusting for potential confounders, the HR was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.56-0.79) for P/FP ≤ 22 mm Hg/cmH2O and 1.10 (95% CI: 0.83-1.47) for P/FP > 22 mm Hg/cmH2O. In addition, lymphocytes ≤ 1 × 109/L and acute kidney failure had a higher risk of death. After adjusting for potential confounders, the P/FP after 24 hours of IMV was nonlinearly associated with in-hospital mortality in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19.

Comparison of Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes in Intensive Care Units Between Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and Patients with Influenza: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Severe infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or influenza virus can cause patients to be admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). It is necessary to understand the differences in clinical characteristics and outcomes between these two types of critically ill patients.

METHODS

We searched Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science for articles and performed a meta-analysis using Stata 14.0 with a random-effects model. This paper was written in strict accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirty-five articles involving 131,692 ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 30,286 ICU patients with influenza were included in our meta-analysis. Compared with influenza patients, COVID-19 patients were more likely to be male (odds ratio (OR) = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.54-1.99) and older (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.03-0.29). In terms of laboratory test results, COVID-19 patients had higher lymphocyte (SMD = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.17-0.59) and platelet counts (SMD = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.29-0.75) but lower creatinine (SMD = -0.29, 95% CI: -0.55-0.03) and procalcitonin levels (SMD = -0.78, 95% CI: -1.11-0.46). Diabetes (SMD = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.08-1.48) and hypertension (SMD = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.05-1.60) were more prevalent in COVID-19 patients, while influenza patients were more likely to have cancer (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.44-0.62), cirrhosis (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.44-0.62), immunodepression (OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.25-0.58), and chronic pulmonary diseases (OR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.24-0.52). We also found that patients with COVID-19 had longer ICU stays (SMD = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05-0.34), were more likely to develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR = 4.90, 95% CI: 2.77-8.64), and had higher mortality (OR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.17-1.55).

CONCLUSIONS

There are some differences in the basic characteristics, comorbidities, laboratory test results and complications between ICU patients with COVID-19 and ICU patients with influenza. Critically ill patients with COVID-19 often require more medical resources and have worse clinical outcomes. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42023452238.

Acute kidney injury in patients with COVID-19 compared to those with influenza: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

COVID-19 and influenza can both lead to acute kidney injury (AKI) as a common complication. However, no meta-analysis has been conducted to directly compare the incidence of AKI between hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and influenza. The objective of our study aims to investigate the incidence and outcomes of AKI among hospitalized patients between these two groups.

Materials and methods

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted from December 2019 to August 2023 to identify studies examining AKI and clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and influenza. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of AKI, while secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, recovery from AKI, hospital and ICU stay duration. The quality of evidence was evaluated using Cochrane and GRADE methods.

Results

Twelve retrospective cohort studies, involving 17,618 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and influenza, were analyzed. COVID-19 patients showed higher AKI incidence (29.37% vs. 20.98%, OR: 1.67, 95% CI 1.56-1.80, p < 0.01, I2 = 92.42%), and in-hospital mortality (30.95% vs. 5.51%, OR: 8.16, 95% CI 6.17-10.80, p < 0.01, I2 = 84.92%) compared to influenza patients with AKI. Recovery from AKI was lower in COVID-19 patients (57.02% vs., 80.23%, OR: 0.33, 95% CI 0.27-0.40, p < 0.01, I2 = 85.17%). COVID-19 patients also had a longer hospital stay (SMD: 0.69, 95% CI 0.65-0.72, p < 0.01, I2 = 98.94%) and longer ICU stay (SMD: 0.61, 95% CI 0.50-0.73, p < 0.01, I2 = 94.80%) than influenza patients. In our study, evidence quality was high (NOS score 7-9), with low certainty for AKI incidence and moderate certainty for recovery form AKI by GRADE assessment.

Conclusion

COVID-19 patients had higher risk of developing AKI, experiencing in-hospital mortality, and enduring prolonged hospital/ICU stays in comparison to influenza patients. Additionally, the likelihood of AKI recovery was lower among COVID-19 patients.

Comparison of Clinical Features and Outcomes between SARS-CoV-2 and Non-SARS-CoV-2 Respiratory Viruses Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Retrospective Analysis

Although a few studies comparing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses have been reported, clinical features and outcomes comparing SARS-CoV-2 and non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are still lacking. We retrospectively identified patients with SARS-CoV-2 (November 2020 to January 2022) and non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses associated ARDS (February 2015 to November 2020) at a single tertiary hospital. Their clinical data were obtained by medical record review. All viral infections were confirmed by RT-PCR. Thirty-one SARS-CoV-2 and seventy-one patients with non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses associated ARDS patients were identified. Influenza (62%) was the most common in non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses associated ARDS patients. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 were more likely to be female and had higher body mass index, lower clinical frailty, APACHE II, and SOFA score than those with non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses. All patients with SARS-CoV-2 were treated with corticosteroids and used more high-flow nasal oxygen than those with non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses. The concomitant respiratory bacterial infection was significantly higher in non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses than SARS-CoV-2. Although there were no significant differences in the 28-, 60-day, and in-hospital mortality rates between SARS-CoV-2 and non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses associated ARDS, the duration of mechanical ventilation and length of hospital stay were significantly longer in patients with SARS-CoV-2 than those with non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses. Although the severity of illness and the concomitant bacterial infection rate were lower in patients with SARS-CoV-2 associated ARDS, mortality rates did not differ from non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses associated ARDS.