Paul Mundra, Zeena Kailani, Mohammad Yaghoobi, Priscilla Matthews, Matthew Tobis, Shadi Sadeghian, Siwar Albashir
{"title":"急性后COVID-19综合征肝损伤:早期观察性研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Paul Mundra, Zeena Kailani, Mohammad Yaghoobi, Priscilla Matthews, Matthew Tobis, Shadi Sadeghian, Siwar Albashir","doi":"10.3138/canlivj-2024-0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS; long COVID) is characterized by persistent or delayed symptoms at least 4 weeks from acute COVID-19 infection. Given the well-documented incidence of liver injury in acute COVID-19, this systematic review aims to assess the odds of liver injury in earlier experiencers of PACS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Observational studies published prior to March 2022 were screened for data describing liver injury (defined per primary study) in patients with PACS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2,117 abstracts and 35 full texts were screened, of which 26 met the inclusion criteria. The mean time since acute COVID infection across all studies was 195.5 days. Seven studies included COVID-negative control groups. Twenty-three studies measured lab findings, and nine studies measured imaging or elastography. Five studies were eligible for meta-analysis of odds ratios, which did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in odds for liver injury in patients with PACS compared with COVID-negative patients (OR 2.22 [95% CI 0.51-9.61; <i>p</i> = 0.28]). Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessments for all studies found 24 of 26 studies with high to very high risk of bias. ROBINS-E assessments for studies included in the meta-analysis found five of five studies with high to very high risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, our findings demonstrate no statistical difference in odds ratios of liver injury in patients with PACS compared with COVID-negative controls. As such, routine assessment and monitoring of liver injury in patients with PACS may not be required; however, higher quality data with lower risk of bias are required to make recommendations of higher certainty.</p>","PeriodicalId":510884,"journal":{"name":"Canadian liver journal","volume":"7 4","pages":"470-489"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12269275/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Liver injury in post-acute COVID-19 syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of early observational studies.\",\"authors\":\"Paul Mundra, Zeena Kailani, Mohammad Yaghoobi, Priscilla Matthews, Matthew Tobis, Shadi Sadeghian, Siwar Albashir\",\"doi\":\"10.3138/canlivj-2024-0010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS; long COVID) is characterized by persistent or delayed symptoms at least 4 weeks from acute COVID-19 infection. Given the well-documented incidence of liver injury in acute COVID-19, this systematic review aims to assess the odds of liver injury in earlier experiencers of PACS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Observational studies published prior to March 2022 were screened for data describing liver injury (defined per primary study) in patients with PACS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2,117 abstracts and 35 full texts were screened, of which 26 met the inclusion criteria. The mean time since acute COVID infection across all studies was 195.5 days. Seven studies included COVID-negative control groups. Twenty-three studies measured lab findings, and nine studies measured imaging or elastography. Five studies were eligible for meta-analysis of odds ratios, which did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in odds for liver injury in patients with PACS compared with COVID-negative patients (OR 2.22 [95% CI 0.51-9.61; <i>p</i> = 0.28]). Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessments for all studies found 24 of 26 studies with high to very high risk of bias. ROBINS-E assessments for studies included in the meta-analysis found five of five studies with high to very high risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, our findings demonstrate no statistical difference in odds ratios of liver injury in patients with PACS compared with COVID-negative controls. As such, routine assessment and monitoring of liver injury in patients with PACS may not be required; however, higher quality data with lower risk of bias are required to make recommendations of higher certainty.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":510884,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian liver journal\",\"volume\":\"7 4\",\"pages\":\"470-489\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12269275/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian liver journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3138/canlivj-2024-0010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian liver journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/canlivj-2024-0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:急性后COVID-19综合征(PACS;长期COVID-19)的特征是在急性COVID-19感染后至少4周出现持续或延迟症状。鉴于急性COVID-19中肝损伤的发生率有充分的文献记载,本系统综述旨在评估早期PACS患者肝损伤的几率。方法:筛选2022年3月之前发表的观察性研究,以获取描述PACS患者肝损伤的数据(根据初始研究定义)。结果:共筛选摘要2117篇,全文35篇,其中26篇符合纳入标准。在所有研究中,急性COVID感染的平均时间为195.5天。七项研究纳入了冠状病毒阴性对照组。23项研究测量了实验室结果,9项研究测量了成像或弹性成像。有5项研究有资格进行优势比荟萃分析,这些研究未显示PACS患者与covid -阴性患者的肝损伤几率有统计学差异(OR 2.22 [95% CI 0.51-9.61;P = 0.28])。纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表对所有研究的评估发现,26项研究中有24项存在高至极高的偏倚风险。对纳入meta分析的研究进行的ROBINS-E评估发现,5项研究中有5项具有高至极高的偏倚风险。结论:总体而言,我们的研究结果表明,PACS患者肝损伤的优势比与covid - 19阴性对照组相比无统计学差异。因此,可能不需要对PACS患者的肝损伤进行常规评估和监测;然而,需要更高质量、更低偏倚风险的数据才能提出更高确定性的建议。
Liver injury in post-acute COVID-19 syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of early observational studies.
Background: Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS; long COVID) is characterized by persistent or delayed symptoms at least 4 weeks from acute COVID-19 infection. Given the well-documented incidence of liver injury in acute COVID-19, this systematic review aims to assess the odds of liver injury in earlier experiencers of PACS.
Methods: Observational studies published prior to March 2022 were screened for data describing liver injury (defined per primary study) in patients with PACS.
Results: A total of 2,117 abstracts and 35 full texts were screened, of which 26 met the inclusion criteria. The mean time since acute COVID infection across all studies was 195.5 days. Seven studies included COVID-negative control groups. Twenty-three studies measured lab findings, and nine studies measured imaging or elastography. Five studies were eligible for meta-analysis of odds ratios, which did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in odds for liver injury in patients with PACS compared with COVID-negative patients (OR 2.22 [95% CI 0.51-9.61; p = 0.28]). Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessments for all studies found 24 of 26 studies with high to very high risk of bias. ROBINS-E assessments for studies included in the meta-analysis found five of five studies with high to very high risk of bias.
Conclusions: Overall, our findings demonstrate no statistical difference in odds ratios of liver injury in patients with PACS compared with COVID-negative controls. As such, routine assessment and monitoring of liver injury in patients with PACS may not be required; however, higher quality data with lower risk of bias are required to make recommendations of higher certainty.