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.

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.