Clinical and immunological comparison of COVID-19 disease between critical and non-critical courses: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction:Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which appeared in 2019, has been classified as critical and non-critical according to clinical signs and symptoms. Critical patients require mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit (ICU) admission, whereas non-critical patients require neither mechanical ventilation nor ICU admission. Several factors have been recently identified as effective factors, including blood cell count, enzymes, blood markers, and underlying diseases. By comparing blood markers, comorbidities, co-infections, and their relationship with mortality, we sought to determine differences between critical and non-critical groups. Method:We used Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases for our systematic search. Inclusion criteria include any report describing the clinical course of COVID-19 patients and showing the association of the COVID-19 clinical courses with blood cells, blood markers, and bacterial co-infection changes. Twenty-one publications were eligible for full-text examination between 2019 to 2021. Result:The standard difference in WBC, lymphocyte, and platelet between the two clinical groups was 0.538, -0.670, and -0.421, respectively. Also, the standard difference between the two clinical groups of CRP, ALT, and AST was 0.482, 0.402, and 0.463, respectively. The odds ratios for hypertension and diabetes were significantly different between the two groups. The prevalence of co-infection also in the critical group is higher. Conclusion:In conclusion, our data suggest that critical patients suffer from a suppressed immune system, and the inflammation level, the risk of organ damage, and co-infections are significantly high in the critical group and suggests the use of bacteriostatic instead of bactericides to treat co-infections.