Profile of Circulatory Cytokines and Chemokines in Human Coronaviruses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
SARS, MERS, and COVID-19 share similar characteristics. For instance, the genetic homology of SARS-CoV-2 compared to SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is 80% and 50%, respectively, which may cause similar clinical features. Moreover, uncontrolled release of proinflammatory mediators (also called a cytokine storm) by activated immune cells in SARS, MERS, and COVID-19 patients leads to severe phenotype development.
Aim
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the inflammatory cytokine profile associated with three strains of severe human coronavirus diseases (MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2).
Method
The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published until July 2020. Randomized and observational studies reporting the inflammatory cytokines associated with severe and non-severe human coronavirus diseases, including MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2, were included. Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model with a 95% confidence interval to estimate the pooled mean of inflammatory biomarkers.
Results
A high level of circulating IL-6 could be associated with the severity of infection of the three coronavirus strains. TNF, IL-10, and IL-8 are associated with the severity of COVID-19. Increased circulating levels of CXCL10/IP10 and CCL2/MCP-1 might also be related to the severity of MERS.
Conclusion
This study suggests that the immune response and immunopathology in the three severe human coronavirus strains are somewhat similar. The findings highlight that nearly all studies reporting severe cases of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19 have been associated with elevated levels of IL-6. This could be used as a potential therapeutic target to improve patients’ outcomes in severe cases.
Systematic Review Registration
PROSPERO registration 94 number: CRD42020209931.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.16.21251673: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources A detailed electronic search on bibliographic databases including Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed from inception to July 2020. Medlinesuggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)Embasesuggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)Cochrane Librarysuggested: (Cochrane Library, RRID:SCR_013000)Keywords, Emtree and MeSH terms were used with both English and American spellings. MeSHsuggested: (MeSH, RRID:SCR_004750)All analysis was performed using STATA 15.0. STATAsuggeste…SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.16.21251673: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources A detailed electronic search on bibliographic databases including Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed from inception to July 2020. Medlinesuggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)Embasesuggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)Cochrane Librarysuggested: (Cochrane Library, RRID:SCR_013000)Keywords, Emtree and MeSH terms were used with both English and American spellings. MeSHsuggested: (MeSH, RRID:SCR_004750)All analysis was performed using STATA 15.0. STATAsuggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Limitation of the study: Several limitations exist within our study; the most important is the observational nature of studies and significant heterogeneity in study results. However, high statistical heterogeneity is more frequent in meta-analyses of prevalence and descriptive studies (79). This can be explained because of the different patient populations, underlying comorbidities and coinfections, variant treatments and follow-up. The different time of blood collections, control donors, and cytokine detection assays can also explain the heterogenicity. Another significant limitation is the variability in laboratory assays used to measure the level of serum cytokines, as local laboratories have different normal ranges based on local data. This confounding variable can somewhat undermine our results and thus, our data should be interpreted as such, keeping in mind this important limitation. The number of studies included on SARS and MERS compared to COVID-19 were low. However, this can be explained as the COVID-19 infection caused a major threat to the whole population compared to SARS and MERS.
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-