Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 380

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Open access
Lippi, Giuseppe, Henry, Brandon Michael·2020·Respiratory Medicine

Abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a respiratory and systemic illness that may progress to severe hypoxemia needing some form of ventilatory support in as many as 15–20% of suspected and confirmed cases [1]. In outbreak regions, the surge in critically ill patients has placed significant strain on intensive care units (ICUs), with volume demands that overwhelm current capacity [1]. There is a compelling need to identify clinical predictors of severe COVID-19 to enable risk stratification and optimize resource allocation. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) [2]. Alterations in local/systemic inflammatory response, impaired host immunity, microbiome imbalance, persistent mucus production, structural damage, and use of inhaled corticosteroids have been hypothesized to contribute to such risk [3]. With respect to COVID-19, levels of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), the reported host receptor of the virus responsible of COVID-19 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; SARS-CoV-2), have been observed to be increased in patients with COPD [4,5]. However, early individual COVID-19 studies have not consistently reported a significantly higher rate of severe disease in COPD patients [6,7]. In this article, we analyze if COPD may be associated with increased odds of severe COVID-19 infection. An electronic search was performed in Medline (PubMed interface), Scopus and Web of Science, using the keywords “chronic obstructive pulmonary disease” OR “COPD” OR “clinical characteristics” AND “coronavirus 2019” OR “COVID-19” OR “2019-nCoV” OR “SARS-CoV2”, between 2019 and present time (i.e., March 9, 2020). No language restrictions were applied. The title, abstract and full text of all articles captured with the search criteria were evaluated, and those reporting the rate of COPD in COVID-19 patients with a clinically validated definition of severe disease were included in this meta-analysis. The reference list of all identified studies was also analyzed (forward and backward citation tracking) to detect additional articles. The obtained data was pooled into a meta-analysis, with estimation of the odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) in patients with or without severe forms of COVID-19. The statistical analysis was performed using MetaXL, software Version 5.3 (EpiGear International Pty Ltd., Sunrise Beach, Australia). The study was carried out in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki and with the term of local legislation. Overall, 87 articles were initially identified based on our electronic and reference search, which after screening by tile, abstract, and full text, 80 were excluded as not related to COVID-19 (n 1⁄4 27), were review articles (n 1⁄4 7), did not provide relevant data (n 1⁄4 28), were editorials (n 1⁄4 10), did not provide data on severity or comorbidities (n 1⁄4 5), compared patients by mortality not severity (n 1⁄4 2) or compared mild cases to critical cases (n 1⁄4 1). Thus, a total number of 7 studies were finally included in our meta-analysis, totaling 1592 COVID-19 patients, 314 of which (19.7%) had severe disease [6–12]. The essential characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 1, whilst the individual and pooled OR of COPD for predicting severe COVID-19 is presented in Fig. 1. Only in a single study was the individual OR found to be a significant predictor of COPD [8]. However, when the data of the individual studies was pooled, COPD was found to be significantly associated with severe COVID-19 (OR: 5.69 [95:CI: 2.49–13.00], I2 1⁄4 0.0%, Cochran’s Q, p 1⁄4 0.95). A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis, excluding the largest study by Guan et al. [8] which accounted for 52.3% of pooled weight, found no significant differences (OR: 5.88 [95%CI: 1.78–19.50]). In conclusion, the results of this concise meta-analysis demonstrate COPD is associated with a significant, over five-fold increased risk of severe CODID-19 infection. Patients with a history of COPD should be encouraged adopt more restrictive measures for minimizing potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and contact with suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19. Clinicians should also carefully monitor all COPD patients with suspected infection and, finally, it may be advisable to consider COPD as a variable in future risk stratification models.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.rmed.2020.105941

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Lippi, G., & Henry, B. M.
Venue
Respiratory Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-06
Volume
167
Pages
105941
ISSN
0954-6111 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3012796370
Cited by
380
References
2
FWCI
10.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.