MARATTO

review · Reviews in Medical Virology

Prevalence and clinical outcomes of COVID‐19 in patients with pre‐existing celiac disease: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

20235 citationsOpen accessUniversity College Hospital, Ibadan

Abstract

Abstract There is a scarcity of scientific evidence addressing the outcomes of COVID‐19 in celiac disease (CD) patients. This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to evaluate the correlation between pre‐existing CD and COVID‐19. A rigorous literature search was conducted using multiple databases. All eligible observational studies were included from around the globe. The random effect model calculated the pooled prevalence and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). Mantel‐Haenszel odds ratios were produced to report the overall effect size using random effect models for severity and mortality outcomes. Funnel plots, Egger regression tests, and Begg‐Mazumdar's rank correlation test were used to appraise publication bias. Data from 11 articles consisting of 44,378 CD patients were obtained. Overall pooled random‐effects estimate of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in CD patients was 4.25% (95% CI, I 2 = 98%). Our findings also indicated that pre‐existing CD was not associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation with COVID‐19 illness (OR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.87–1.24, I 2 = 0%) and mortality due to illness (OR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.56–1.5, I 2 = 45%) compared with patients without pre‐existing CD. No significant publication bias was evident in the meta‐analysis. The preliminary data from our analysis suggest that SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in patients with pre‐existing CD is not associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation or mortality. Additional studies are required to overcome the restrictions of the limited data available at present.

Research topics

  • Celiac Disease Research and Management
  • Microscopic Colitis
  • Microbial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology

Sustainable Development Goals

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.1002/rmv.2433

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.