Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

COVID-19 gender susceptibility and outcomes: A systematic review

  • Ines Lakbar ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Ines Lakbar, David Luque-Paz

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Software, Writing – original draft

    Affiliations Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Unit, Nord Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux Universitaire de Marseille, Aix Marseille University, Marseille, France, MEPHI, IHU Méditerranée Infection, Aix Marseille Université, Marseille, France, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Unit, Toulouse, France

  • David Luque-Paz ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Ines Lakbar, David Luque-Paz

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft

    Affiliations Infectious Diseases and Intensive Care Unit, Pontchaillou University Hospital, Rennes, France, University of Rennes, Inserm, BRM (Bacterial Regulatory RNAs and Medicine), UMR 1230, Rennes, France

  • Jean-Louis Mege,

    Roles Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation MEPHI, IHU Méditerranée Infection, Aix Marseille Université, Marseille, France

  • Sharon Einav,

    Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Intensive Care Unit of the Shaare Zedek Medical Centre and Hebrew University Faculty of Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel

  • Marc Leone

    Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    marc.leone@ap-hm.fr

    Affiliations Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Unit, Nord Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux Universitaire de Marseille, Aix Marseille University, Marseille, France, MEPHI, IHU Méditerranée Infection, Aix Marseille Université, Marseille, France

COVID-19 gender susceptibility and outcomes: A systematic review

  • Ines Lakbar, 
  • David Luque-Paz, 
  • Jean-Louis Mege, 
  • Sharon Einav, 
  • Marc Leone
PLOS
x

Abstract

Background

Epidemiological differences between men and women have been reported with regards to sepsis, influenza and severe coronavirus infections including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.

Aim

To systematically review the literature relating to men versus women on SARS-CoV-2 in order to seek differences in disease characteristics (e.g. infectivity, severity) and outcomes (e.g. mortality).

Methods

We searched 3 electronic databases up or observational studies reporting differences between men and women in the SARS-CoV-2 disease characteristics stated. We identified and included 47 studies, reporting data for 21,454 patients mainly from China.

Results

The unadjusted mortality rates of men were higher than those of women, with a mortality OR 0.51 [0.42, 0.61] (p<0.001) for women. The proportion of men presenting with severe disease and admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) was also higher than that of women (OR 0.75 [0.60–0.93] p<0.001 and OR 0.45 [0.40–0.52] p<0.001 respectively). Adjusted analyses could not be conducted due to lack of data.

Conclusion

COVID-19 may be associated with worse outcomes in males than in females. However, until more detailed data are provided in further studies enabling adjusted analysis, this remains an unproven assumption.

Introduction

Many infectious diseases, including sepsis, have been associated with gender differences in disease incidence, morbidity and mortality [13]. Epidemiological differences between men and women have also been reported with regards to previous outbreaks of highly-pathogenic coronaviruses such as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-1) [4] and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) [5]. Men are more likely to be infected with MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV than women and when infected, they also seem to have worse outcomes [4]. These clinical findings are consistent with mouse models suggesting that estrogen reduces the susceptibility and severity of SARS-CoV infection; female mice that had their ovaries removed suffered from increased disease infectivity and severity [6]. SARS-CoV-2 may also affect men and women differently. However, at the time of this writing few epidemiological studies have explored the data on SARS-CoV-2 with regards to COVID-19 disease incidence and case-fatality rate. It therefore remains unclear if the disease characteristics (e.g. infectivity, severity) and outcomes (e.g. mortality) of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection differ between the genders [7].

The effects of different viral infections on men and women are probably pathogen–specific. For instance, contrary to reports on MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-1, women have been reported to suffer higher morbidity and mortality than men during influenza outbreaks [8]. Biological factors (referred to as sex-related variables) and sociocultural factors (referred as gender-related variables) are often put forward as explanations for the differences observed between men and women with regards to susceptibility and host response [912]. In this review we aimed to compile the data relating to men versus women in the literature on SARS-CoV-2. The intention was to seek differences, if these exist, between men and women in SARS-CoV-2 disease characteristics (e.g. infectivity, severity) and outcomes (e.g. mortality). Despite the nuances in terminology described above, the term “gender” is used throughout the manuscript in relation to all variables for the sake of convenience.

Methods

This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations [13] and was registered in the PROSPERO database prior to study initiation (CRD42020184142).

PICO question

We sought to study whether among adult patients with COVID-19 (P) women (“I”) differ from men (C) with regards to disease characteristics (e.g. infectivity, severity) and outcomes (any outcomemortality, severity and ICU admission rates) (O).

Search strategy

Two of the authors (IL, DLP) conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Medline, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases from inception to 1-June-2020 for studies describing any epidemiological characteristic related to patient gender in COVID-19. We initially used a broad search strategy which included any paper regarding the disease at hand. The following search terms were used: “2019 novel coronavirus” OR “SARS-CoV-2” OR “2019-nCoV” OR “novel coronavirus”. We then restricted the search for articles on adult humans. In the last stage of the database search, articles which were not written in English and those which were conducted on animal models and special populations (children, pregnant women) were also excluded. Among the articles remaining we sought those providing any information regarding gender.

Eligibility criteria and study selection

We included randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, observational cohorts and case series that (1) described adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) and also (2) provided information regarding the relative proportion of men and women with confirmed disease, and/or admitted to hospital and/or the intensive care unit (ICU) and as well as their mortality rates. We also sought information regarding the background and acute disease characteristics of the two populations (men and women) with particular emphasis on severity of disease. We did not include preprints.

The articles were first selected by two of the authors (IL, DLP) in duplicate and independently based on title and abstract. Those selected were downloaded in full to allow full text review and those fulfilling the predetermined inclusion criteria regarding both disease diagnosis and presentation of relevant epidemiological data were included. The reference lists of relevant articles were also screened (i.e. snowballing method). Disagreement over study inclusion was resolved by consensus or, if necessary, by the adjudication of a third author (ML). For the sake of comprehensiveness, we decided to include also relevant single-arm studies without a comparison group. We excluded articles reporting data with complete or partial overlap with other reports. Abstracts, conference proceedings, and publications describing a single treatment arm were included only if they presented sufficient details. The exact details of the inclusion/exclusion process are shown in the PRISMA diagram (Fig 1).

As we also intended to perform an individual patient level meta-analysis (IPDMA), we contacted the corresponding authors of all the included studies (and five of the excluded studies to ensure full data capture) through electronic mail. The authors were requested to share their anonymised data regarding comorbidities, treatment with antivirals, treatment with corticosteroids and age of deceased among men and women. IPDMA allows for a more exact analysis of adjusted outcome. We intended to study in particular the adjusted primary outcome of mortality at any time.

Assessment of risk of bias (RoB)

Two of the authors (IL, DLP) assessed the RoB of the included studies independently and in duplicate. Disagreements over RoB were resolved by consensus or, if necessary, adjudicated by a third author (ML). As in all of the included studies the data were observational and the groups were not randomly assigned we used the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for assessing RoB and did not evaluate the “comparability” item [14]. For each domain we rated the overall RoB as the highest risk attributed to any criterion. A good quality score required at least two stars in the selection domain and three stars in the outcomes domain. The quality score was considered poor if the study obtained zero or one star in the selection and outcomes domains. A poor quality score was determined as no or one star in selection and outcomes domains. Since the element of comparability could not be assessed, the absence of a star in this element was not decisive for a good quality rating for a study. We assessed certainty in overall effect estimates using GRADE (Grade of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods [15].

Data extraction

Two of the authors (IL, DLP) extracted data from the included studies independently and in duplicate to pre-prepared forms. The data extracted included the characteristics of the included publication (e.g. type of publication, journal name, date of publication) and the information provided (e.g. patients’ age, number of men and women reported infected, ill [hospital admissions] and critically ill [ICU admissions], patients’ background characteristics, disease severity and mortality).

Outcome measures

As we were unsure whether the authors approached would be forthcoming with their data we set our main outcome measure as the unadjusted all-cause mortality rate, as reported in the included studies (hospital, out-of-hospital, depending on the duration of the follow-up). Secondary outcomes included disease severity (as per author definition), and ICU admission rates as well as the adjusted mortality rates.

Statistical analysis

We set out to perform a quantitative synthesis if two or more studies were identified with sufficient homogeneity in study design, interventions and outcomes and low risk of bias [16]. The odds ratios (OR) were calculated by reporting available data from included studies, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). P-values were considered significant if <0.05. Pooled prevalences and their 95% CIs were used to summarize the weighted effect size for each study grouping variables using the binary fixed-effects model (Mantel-Haenszel method). Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated by the I2, corresponding to the proportion of total variation due to inter-study heterogeneity, and visual inspections of the forest plots. All the analyses were performed using Revman Version 5.4 (Copenhagen, Denmark).

Results

A total of 2,379 studies were screened, of which 47 contributed data to our analysis for a total of 21,454 patients consisting of 11,176 women and 10,278 men [1761]. Most of the included studies originated from different hospitals in China (n = 38), one originated from Hong Kong, two from South Korea, five from Europe and North America and one from Israel (Table 1). The quality of 43 of the studies was rated as poor and of 4 of the studies was rated as good (Table 2).

Crude mortality rates

Characteristics of the studies that contributed data to the analysis of crude mortality rates in men and women.

The crude mortality rates were reported separately for 5,589 men and 6,751 women in 19 studies. Among the included studies, 1 was prospective and observational, 10 were retrospective database studies, and 9 were case series. None of the studies aimed a-priori to compare between the genders as the main outcome measure. There were no studies that attempted to assess sex differences as the main outcome measure. Most of the studies included less than 300 patients. The studies reporting crude mortality data involved mainly cohorts of hospitalized patients, except for one Korean epidemiological study of 7,755 patients [61]. Variables such as age, patient comorbidities, and treatments were not reported individually, so mortality data could not be adjusted. The characteristics and the main findings of the included studies are provided in Table 1.

RoB in the studies that contributed data to the analysis of mortality rates in men and women.

The results of the quality assessment were highly variable ranging from 1/7 (two studies) to 5/7 (two studies) on the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (Table 2). The main caveats were that patient follow-up was either non-existent or very short, and mortality assessment was not standardized.

Mortality rates in men and women.

Overall 280 (4%) women died versus 623 (11%) men (p<0.001, OR 0.51 [0.42, 0.61] for women versus men, see Fig 2) based on a very low-certainty evidence (Table 3). However, there was significant variability in the mortality rates reported in different studies, with OR and 95% CI ranging from 0.14 [0.01, 2.86] to 1.33 [0.27, 6.50]. Heterogeneity reported as I2 was low at 6% for this analysis. The funnel plot (S1a Fig in S1 File) and the Egger test (p = 0.54) both indicated that there was no evidence for publication bias.

thumbnail
Fig 2. Crude mortality risk according to the gender of COVID-19 patients.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241827.g002

thumbnail
Table 3. Certainty in overall mortality effect estimates using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241827.t003

Sensitivity analyses.

A sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the stability of the results. Heterogeneity as measured by I2 was already low, therefore omitting studies sequentially had no significative influence on the results (S2 Fig in S1 File).

Unadjusted severe disease presentation

Characteristics of the studies that contributed data to the analysis of severe disease presentation in men and women.

The proportion of men and women with severe disease presentation was reported in 23 studies, including 1,721 women and 1,970 men. Among the included studies 1 was prospective observational, 9 were retrospective database studies, and 13 were case series. None of the studies aimed a-priori to compare between the genders as the severity of the disease. Most of the studies included less than 200 patients. As for the definition of severity, of the 23 studies, 14 used the definition of the National Health Commission of China [17, 19, 20, 24, 27, 29, 33, 36, 41, 42, 55, 56, 58, 62], 2 used the WHO interim guidelines [49, 52], 2 used the American Thoracic Society guidelines [35, 57], and the last 3 used a predetermined clinical presentation [44, 60, 63]. All these definitions and scores were based on clinical, biological and radiological parameters assessing respiratory failure, hypoxemia and disease progression. Only one study did not provide the exact definition of severe cases [39].

RoB in the studies that contributed data to the analysis of severe disease presentation in men and women.

The assessment of the studies contributing to the severity analysis showed variability ranking from 2/7 to 5/7, as reported in Table 2.

Severe disease presentation in men and women.

Overall, 355 (21%) women developed severe disease out of 1,721 women versus 500 (25%) men out of 1,970 men (OR 0.75 [0.60–0.93] for women versus men, p<0.001, see Fig 3). There was great variability in the rates of severe disease in men and women, with OR and 95% CI ranging from 0.23 [0.02, 2.73] to 2.14 [0.47, 9.74]. Heterogeneity reported as I2 was reaching 28% for this analysis. The funnel plot (S1b Fig in S1 File) and the Egger test (p = 0.18) both indicated that there was no evidence for publication bias.

thumbnail
Fig 3. Risk of severe presentation of the COVID-19 according to gender.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241827.g003

Unadjusted rates of ICU admission

Characteristics of the studies that contributed data to the analysis of mortality rates in men and women.

The ICU admission rates were reported separately for 4,222 men and 3,859 women in 18 studies. Among the included studies 4 were prospective and observational, 5 were retrospective database studies, and 10 were case series. None of the studies aimed a-priori to compare differences between the sexes as the main outcome measure. Most of the studies included less than 100 patients. The characteristics and the main findings of the included studies are provided in Table 1.

RoB in the studies that contributed data to the analysis of ICU admission rates in men and women.

The results of the quality assessment were highly variable ranging from 1/7 to 4/7 on the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (Table 2). The lowest scores are explained by the large number of case series included in this analysis.

Unadjusted rates of ICU admission of men and women.

The proportion of men and women admitted to ICU was of 454 (12%) women and 931 (22%) men, (OR 0.45 [0.40–0.52], for women versus men, p<0.001, see Fig 4). Heterogeneity reported as I2 was as low as 0% for this analysis. The funnel plot (S1c Fig in S1 File) and the Egger test (p = 0.51) both indicated that there was no evidence for publication bias.

IPDMA and adjusted outcomes

Despite repeated appeals, of all the authors contacted, only two responded to our request for data (the data was anonymized in both cases). This precluded performance of an IPDMA of adjusted outcomes; there were insufficient data on relevant variables (co-morbidities, treatment and age by vital status for males and females).

Discussion

Unadjusted data suggest that men may have a higher risk of developing severe COVID-19 and also have higher associated death rates than women. Lacking detailed patient level data we were unable to determine whether this finding remains consistent after adjusting for the age and the burden of co-morbidity.

Several authors have suggested that men are more likely to be infected with COVID-19, especially after 50 years of age [64]. Alsan et al. reported that the incidence of COVID-19 in men was almost four times higher than in women (4.4% vs 1.2%) [65]. Here we report a similar total number of COVID-19 cases in men and women, suggesting that our findings are not directly related to a frequency argument.

Male-female differences in infectious diseases have already been reported and explored in the literature [911]. These differences are usually attributed to three determinants: differences in immune function associated with the X chromosome, the effects of sex hormones and gender-related behavior [12].

In the context of viral infections, men and women exhibit different immune reactions depending on the type of virus [66]. When infected with SARS-Cov, women usually have heightened immunity protecting them from severe forms of the disease, likely due to activation of the X regulatory genes, resulting in lower viral loads and higher CD4 T-cell counts [6, 67]. Women have additional immune characteristics which provide an advantage when exposed to viral infection compared to men. For example women have higher expression of Toll-like receptor 7 (TLR7) which is known to recognize viral RNA. They also produce more interferon- α, which is associated with the protection of lung tissue in animal models. Differences in production of IL-6 have also been observed between men and women [10].

Estradiol is believed to stimulate humoral and cell-mediated immune responses [68] and increase antibody production (73). Estradiol is also involved in regulating the expression of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), which is known for its protective role in acute respiratory distress syndrome [69, 70]. To date, there is no data available on gender-specific ACE2 expression in the lungs [71]. On the other side of the hormonal spectrum, testosterone is known to be immunosuppressive and decreased testosterone production is associated with elevated levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines [72]. Thus testosterone-related inhibition of the inflammatory response may dampen the antiviral response whereas an estrogen enhanced the increase in antibody and CD8 titers is likely to enhance the antiviral immune response.

Gender differences also exist in the dimension of social behaviour. Alsan et al. reported that men washed their hands 3.8 times per day less than women in a national US survey. Men were also more inclined to go outside than women during lockdown, which may have increased their exposure to SARS-CoV-2 [65]. Comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes and hypertension, which are unequally distributed between men and women at different ages, may also affect the course of disease [73, 74].

Finally, the role of the virus itself should not be underestimated; for example, influenza has higher morbidity and mortality in women than in men [8].

Despite our exhaustive data collection, our analyses are probably tinged with significant selection bias. The studies included report data mainly from China; i.e. the data presented are from the early stage of the outbreak. Such bias could explain the high mortality rates found in our study. Nonetheless, more recent data from Italy also showed higher mortality rates among men [75]. Men also had a higher rate of ICU admission in the US than women (OR = 2.0; 95%CI: 1.3–3.2) [76]. However, while this finding may indicate worse disease severity in men, it could also stem from admission bias. Another limitation of our study is that most of the studies included were retrospective and had a short follow-up period which may lead to underestimation of long-term mortality. The mortality reported in the included studies was mostly in-hospital mortality (except for one study) and ICU mortality was specifically reported in only five studies. These considerations are reflected in the RoB assessment where they negatively affected study ratings, leading to a very low certainty of evidence. But the greatest limitation of our study is that these data could not be adjusted for age, co-morbidities or treatment.

To conclude, COVID-19 may be associated with greater disease severity and higher mortality rates among males. However, this preliminary finding remains unproven until such time that adjusted analyses can be conducted. Our results are in line with previous studies on viruses and are also supported by a strong biological rationale, but the level of evidence is limited by the poor quality of the available data. We urge researchers to conduct further studies and request sharing of data on gender dimorphism in COVID-19 in order to provide more robust evidence on this topic.

References

  1. 1. Mathieu C, Leone M, Anestesiologica M. Gender and sepsis: first step of personalized medicine? 2018;(April):434–6.
  2. 2. Koch MA. Sex Bias in Sepsis. Cell Host Microbe. 2018 Nov;24(5):613–5. pmid:30439335
  3. 3. Bösch F, Angele MK, Chaudry IH. Gender differences in trauma, shock and sepsis. Mil Med Res. 2018 Oct;5(1):35. pmid:30360757
  4. 4. Karlberg J, Chong DSY, Lai WYY. Do Men Have a Higher Case Fatality Rate of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome than Women Do? 2004;159(3):229–31.
  5. 5. Alghamdi IG, Hussain II, Almalki SS, Alghamdi MS, Alghamdi MM, El-Sheemy MA. The pattern of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus in Saudi Arabia: a descriptive epidemiological analysis of data from the Saudi Ministry of Health. Int J Gen Med. 2014;7:417–23. pmid:25187734
  6. 6. Channappanavar R, Fett C, Mack M, Eyck PP Ten, Meyerholz DK, Perlman S. Sex-based differences in susceptibility to SARS-CoV infection. J Immunol. 2018;198(10):319–35.
  7. 7. Ambrosino I, Barbagelata E, Ortona E, Ruggieri A, Massiah G, Giannico OV, et al. Gender differences in patients with COVID-19: a narrative review. Monaldi Arch chest Dis = Arch Monaldi per le Mal del torace. 2020;90(2). pmid:32449614
  8. 8. Klein SL, Hodgson A, Robinson DP. Mechanisms of sex disparities in influenza pathogenesis. J Leukoc Biol. 2012 Jul;92(1):67–73. pmid:22131346
  9. 9. Gebhard C, Regitz-Zagrosek V, Neuhauser HK, Morgan R, Klein SL. Impact of sex and gender on COVID-19 outcomes in Europe. Biol Sex Differ. 2020;11(1):1–13. pmid:31900228
  10. 10. Scully EP, Haverfield J, Ursin RL, Tannenbaum C, Klein SL. Considering how biological sex impacts immune responses and COVID-19 outcomes. Nat Rev Immunol [Internet]. Available from: http://feeds.nature.com/~r/nri/rss/current/~3/aJwwasy_spY/s41577-020-0348-8?utm_source=researcher_app&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=RESR_MRKT_Researcher_inbound pmid:32528136
  11. 11. Spagnolo PA, Manson JAE, Joffe H. Sex and Gender Differences in Health: What the COVID-19 Pandemic Can Teach Us. Ann Intern Med. 2020;(May):8–10. pmid:32384135
  12. 12. Mege J-L, Bretelle F, Leone M. Sex and bacterial infectious diseases. New microbes new Infect. 2018 Nov;26:S100–3. pmid:30402251
  13. 13. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;(January):1–9. pmid:25554246
  14. 14. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):603–5. pmid:20652370
  15. 15. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008 Apr;336(7650):924–6. pmid:18436948
  16. 16. Cochrane. Chapter 12: Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods | Cochrane Training. Cochrane; 2019. 2018;Cochrane H.
  17. 17. Chen G, Wu D, Guo W, Cao Y, Huang D, Wang H, et al. Clinical and immunological features of severe and moderate coronavirus disease 2019. J Clin Invest [Internet]. 2020;130(5 PG-2620–2629):2620–9. Available from: NS- pmid:32217835
  18. 18. Chen T, Wu D, Chen H, Yan W, Yang D, Chen G, et al. Clinical characteristics of 113 deceased patients with coronavirus disease 2019: retrospective study. BMJ [Internet]. 2020;368(PG-m1091):m1091. Available from: NS- pmid:32217556
  19. 19. Liu K, Xu P, Lv W, Qiu X, Yao J, Gu J, et al. CT manifestations of coronavirus disease-2019: A retrospective analysis of 73 cases by disease severity. Eur J Radiol [Internet]. 2020;126(PG-108941):108941. Available from: NS- pmid:32193037
  20. 20. Liu F, Li L, Xu M, Wu J, Luo D, Zhu Y, et al. Prognostic value of interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin in patients with COVID-19. J Clin Virol [Internet]. 2020;127(PG-104370):104370. Available from: NS- pmid:32344321
  21. 21. Pan L, Mu M, Yang P, Sun Y, Wang R, Yan J, et al. Clinical Characteristics of COVID-19 Patients With Digestive Symptoms in Hubei, China: A Descriptive, Cross-Sectional, Multicenter Study. Am J Gastroenterol [Internet]. 2020;115(5 PG-766–773):766–73. Available from: NS- pmid:32287140
  22. 22. Shi H, Han X, Jiang N, Cao Y, Alwalid O, Gu J, et al. Radiological findings from 81 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study. Lancet Infect Dis [Internet]. 2020;20(4 PG-425–434):425–34. Available from: NS-
  23. 23. Sun H, Ning R, Tao Y, Yu C, Deng X, Zhao C, et al. Risk factors for mortality in 244 older adults with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective study. J Am Geriatr Soc [Internet]. 2020;(PG-). Available from: NS- pmid:32383809
  24. 24. Sun S, Cai X, Wang H, He G, Lin Y, Lu B, et al. Abnormalities of peripheral blood system in patients with COVID-19 in Wenzhou, China. Clin Chim Acta [Internet]. 2020;507(PG-174-180):174–80. Available from: NS- pmid:32339487
  25. 25. Tang N, Bai H, Chen X, Gong J, Li D, Sun Z. Anticoagulant treatment is associated with decreased mortality in severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients with coagulopathy. J Thromb Haemost [Internet]. 2020;18(5 PG-1094–1099):1094–9. Available from: NS- pmid:32220112
  26. 26. Tian S, Hu N, Lou J, Chen K, Kang X, Xiang Z, et al. Characteristics of COVID-19 infection in Beijing. J Infect. 2020 Apr;80(4):401–6. pmid:32112886
  27. 27. Wan S, Yi Q, Fan S, Lv J, Zhang X, Guo L, et al. Relationships among lymphocyte subsets, cytokines, and the pulmonary inflammation index in coronavirus (COVID-19) infected patients. Br J Haematol [Internet]. 2020;189(3 PG-428–437):428–37. Available from: NS- pmid:32297671
  28. 28. Wang D, Yin Y, Hu C, Liu X, Zhang X, Zhou S, et al. Clinical course and outcome of 107 patients infected with the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, discharged from two hospitals in Wuhan, China. Crit Care [Internet]. 2020;24(1 PG-188):188. Available from: NS- pmid:32354360
  29. 29. Chen X, Zhao B, Qu Y, Chen Y, Xiong J, Y. F, et al. Detectable serum SARS-CoV-2 viral load (RNAaemia) is closely correlated with drastically elevated interleukin 6 (IL-6) level in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Clin Infect Dis [Internet]. 2020;(PG-). Available from: NS- pmid:32301997
  30. 30. Wang F, Yang Y, Dong K, Yan Y, Zhang S, Ren H, et al. CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF 28 PATIENTS WITH DIABETES AND COVID-19 IN WUHAN, CHINA. Endocr Pract [Internet]. 2020;(PG-). Available from: NS-
  31. 31. Wang L, He W, Yu X, Hu D, Bao M, Liu H, et al. Coronavirus disease 2019 in elderly patients: Characteristics and prognostic factors based on 4-week follow-up. J Infect [Internet]. 2020;(PG-). Available from: NS- pmid:32240670
  32. 32. Wu C, Chen X, Cai Y, Xia J, Zhou X, Xu S, et al. Risk Factors Associated With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Death in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA Intern Med [Internet]. 2020;(PG-). Available from: NS- pmid:32167524
  33. 33. Xu Y, Dong J, An W, Lv X, Yin X, Zhang J, et al. Clinical and computed tomographic imaging features of novel coronavirus pneumonia caused by SARS-CoV-2. J Infect [Internet]. 2020;80(4 PG-394–400):394–400. Available from: NS- pmid:32109443
  34. 34. Yan Y, Yang Y, Wang F, Ren H, Zhang S, Shi X, et al. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with severe covid-19 with diabetes. BMJ open diabetes Res care [Internet]. 2020;8(1 PG-). Available from: NS-
  35. 35. Yan A, Liu J, Tao W, Li H. The diagnostic and predictive role of NLR, d-NLR and PLR in COVID-19 patients. Int Immunopharmacol [Internet]. 2020;84(PG-106504):106504. Available from: NS- pmid:32304994
  36. 36. Yang Y, Shen C, Li J, Yuan J, Wei J, Huang F, et al. Plasma IP-10 and MCP-3 levels are highly associated with disease severity and predict the progression of COVID-19. J Allergy Clin Immunol [Internet]. 2020;(PG-). Available from: NS- pmid:32360286
  37. 37. Yang X, Yu Y, Xu J, Shu H, Xia J, H. L, et al. Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study. Lancet Respir Med [Internet]. 2020;8(5 PG-475–481):475–81. Available from: NS- pmid:32105632
  38. 38. Yuan M, Yin W, Tao Z, Tan W, Hu Y. Association of radiologic findings with mortality of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. PLoS One [Internet]. 2020;15(3 PG-e0230548):e0230548. Available from: NS- pmid:32191764
  39. 39. Zeng F, Dai C, Cai P, Wang J, Xu L, Li J, et al. A comparison study of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody between male and female COVID-19 patients: a possible reason underlying different outcome between sex. J Med Virol [Internet]. 2020;(PG-). Available from: NS- pmid:32383183
  40. 40. Chen R, Liang W, Jiang M, Guan W, Zhan C, T. W, et al. Risk Factors of Fatal Outcome in Hospitalized Subjects With Coronavirus Disease 2019 From a Nationwide Analysis in China. Chest [Internet]. 2020;(PG-). Available from: NS- pmid:32304772
  41. 41. Zhang G, Zhang J, Wang B, Zhu X, Wang Q, Qiu S. Analysis of clinical characteristics and laboratory findings of 95 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a retrospective analysis. Respir Res [Internet]. 2020;21(1 PG-74):74. Available from: NS- pmid:32216803
  42. 42. Zheng S, Fan J, Yu F, Feng B, Lou B, Zou Q, et al. Viral load dynamics and disease severity in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Zhejiang province, China, January-March 2020: retrospective cohort study. BMJ [Internet]. 2020;369(PG-m1443):m1443. Available from: NS- pmid:32317267
  43. 43. Zhou F, Yu T, Du R, Fan G, Liu Y, Liu Z, et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet (London, England) [Internet]. 2020;395(10229 PG-1054–1062):1054–62. Available from: NS- pmid:32171076
  44. 44. To K, Tsang O, Leung W, Tam A, Wu T, Lung D, et al. Temporal profiles of viral load in posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples and serum antibody responses during infection by SARS-CoV-2: an observational cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis [Internet]. 2020;20(5 PG-565–574):565–74. Available from: NS- pmid:32213337
  45. 45. Amrane S, Aubry C, Brouqui P, Colson P, JC D, Doudier B, et al. Clinical and microbiological effect of a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in 80 COVID-19 patients with at least a six-day follow up: A pilot observational study. Travel Med Infect Dis [Internet]. 2020;34(PG-101663):101663. Available from: NS- pmid:32289548
  46. 46. Bartalesi F, Bartoloni A, Borchi B, Botta A, Graziani L, Lagi F, et al. Early experience of an infectious and tropical diseases unit during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, Florence, Italy, February to March 2020. Euro Surveill [Internet]. 2020;25(17 PG-). Available from: NS- pmid:32372754
  47. 47. Petrilli CM, Jones SA, Yang J, Rajagopalan H, O’Donnell L, Chernyak Y, et al. Factors associated with hospital admission and critical illness among 5279 people with coronavirus disease 2019 in New York City: prospective cohort study. BMJ [Internet]. 2020;369(PG-m1966):m1966. Available from: NS- pmid:32444366
  48. 48. Ahn J, Choi E, Chung J, Hong K, Jang J, Jin H, et al. Clinical Features and Outcomes of 98 Patients Hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Daegu, South Korea: A Brief Descriptive Study. Yonsei Med J [Internet]. 2020;61(5 PG-431–437):431–7. Available from: NS- pmid:32390367
  49. 49. Cai S, Jin C, Li F, Liang T, Liu Z, Wang Y, et al. Association between Initial Chest CT or Clinical Features and Clinical Course in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia. Korean J Radiol [Internet]. 2020;21(6 PG-736–745):736–45. Available from: NS- pmid:32410412
  50. 50. An Y, Ao W, Feng R, Gao Y, Wang J, Wang X, et al. CT characteristics of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus: association with clinical type. Clin Radiol [Internet]. 2020;75(6 PG-408–414):408–14. Available from: NS- pmid:32327229
  51. 51. Conversano A, Melillo F, Napolano A, Fominskiy E, Spessot M, Ciceri F, et al. RAAs inhibitors and outcome in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. A case series study. Hypertens (Dallas, Tex 1979) [Internet]. 2020;(PG-). Available from: NS-
  52. 52. Chen H, Gong Z, Li D, Li X, Li Y, Wang L, et al. Coronavirus Disease 19 Infection Does Not Result in Acute Kidney Injury: An Analysis of 116 Hospitalized Patients from Wuhan, China. Am J Nephrol [Internet]. 2020;51(5 PG-343–348):343–8. Available from: NS- pmid:32229732
  53. 53. Chen L, Chen Z, Feng L, Feng Y, Hu P, Huang H, et al. Kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 specific IgM and IgG responses in COVID-19 patients. Emerg Microbes Infect [Internet]. 2020;9(1 PG-940–948):940–8. Available from: NS- pmid:32357808
  54. 54. Chen Q, Guo L, Wang B, Wang M, Xia G. Typical radiological progression and clinical features of patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Aging (Albany NY) [Internet]. 2020;12(9 PG-7652–7659):7652–9. Available from: NS- pmid:32364528
  55. 55. Chen X, Dittmer U, Guo C, Han C, He S, He Y, et al. Longitudinal characteristics of lymphocyte responses and cytokine profiles in the peripheral blood of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. EBioMedicine [Internet]. 2020;55(PG-102763):102763. Available from: NS- pmid:32361250
  56. 56. Fei M, Guo H, He H, Lu Z, Ma Y, Wang J, et al. Risk-adapted Treatment Strategy For COVID-19 Patients. Int J Infect Dis [Internet]. 2020;94(PG-74-77):74–7. Available from: NS- pmid:32229257
  57. 57. Guan W, Ni Z, Hu Y, Liang W, Ou C, He J, et al. Clinical Characteristics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China. N Engl J Med [Internet]. 2020;382(18 PG-1708–1720):1708–20. Available from: NS- pmid:32109013
  58. 58. Hou H, Zhang B, Huang H, Luo Y, Wu S, Tang G, et al. Using IL-2R/lymphocyte for predicting the clinical progression of patients with COVID-19. Clin Exp Immunol [Internet]. 2020;(PG-). Available from: NS- pmid:32365221
  59. 59. Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Zhao J, Hu Y, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet (London, England) [Internet]. 2020;395(10223 PG-497–506):497–506. Available from: NS-
  60. 60. Itelman E, Wasserstrum Y, Segev A, Avaky C, Negru L, D. C, et al. Clinical Characterization of 162 COVID-19 patients in Israel: Preliminary Report from a Large Tertiary Center. Isr Med Assoc J [Internet]. 2020;22(5 PG-271–274):271–4. Available from: NS- pmid:32378815
  61. 61. Coronavirus Disease-19: The First 7,755 Cases in the Republic of Korea. Osong public Heal Res Perspect [Internet]. 2020;11(2 PG-85–90):85–90. Available from: NS-
  62. 62. Liu F, Zhang Q, Huang C, Shi C, Wang L, Shi N, et al. CT quantification of pneumonia lesions in early days predicts progression to severe illness in a cohort of COVID-19 patients. Theranostics [Internet]. 2020;10(12 PG-5613–5622):5613–22. Available from: NS- pmid:32373235
  63. 63. Tian S, Hu N, Lou J, Chen K, Kang X, Xiang Z, et al. Characteristics of COVID-19 infection in Beijing. J Infect [Internet]. 2020;80(4 PG-401–406):401–6. Available from: NS- pmid:32112886
  64. 64. Raisi-estabragh Z, Mccracken C, Bethell MS, Cooper J, Cooper C, Caulfield MJ, et al. OUP accepted manuscript. J Public Health (Bangkok). 2020;25:1–10.
  65. 65. Alsan M, Stantcheva S, Yang D, Cutler D. Disparities in Coronavirus 2019 Reported Incidence, Knowledge, and Behavior Among US Adults. JAMA Netw open [Internet]. 2020;3(6):e2012403. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32556260
  66. 66. Klein SL, Flanagan KL. Sex differences in immune responses. Nat Rev Immunol [Internet]. 2016;16(10):626–38. Available from: pmid:27546235
  67. 67. Conti P, Younes A. Coronavirus COV-19/SARS-CoV-2 affects women less than men: clinical response to viral infection. Vol. 34, Journal of biological regulators and homeostatic agents. Italy; 2020. pmid:32253888
  68. 68. Fischer J, Jung N, Robinson N, Lehmann C. Sex differences in immune responses to infectious diseases. Infection. 2015;43(4):399–403.
  69. 69. Bukowska A, Spiller L, Wolke C, Lendeckel U, Weinert S, Hoffmann J, et al. Protective regulation of the ACE2/ACE gene expression by estrogen in human atrial tissue from elderly men. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2017 Aug;242(14):1412–23. pmid:28661206
  70. 70. La Vignera S, Cannarella R, Condorelli RA, Torre F, Aversa A, Calogero AE. Sex-specific SARS-CoV2 mortality: Among hormone-modulated ace2 expression, risk of venous thromboembolism and hypovitaminosis D. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(8):5–10. pmid:32331343
  71. 71. Majdic G. Could Sex / Gender Differences in ACE2 Expression in the Lungs Contribute to the Large Gender Disparity in the Morbidity and Mortality of Patients Infected With the SARS-CoV-2 Virus? 2020;10(June):9–11.
  72. 72. Bianchi VE. The Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Testosterone. J Endocr Soc. 2019;3(1):91–107. pmid:30582096
  73. 73. Mauvais-Jarvis F. Epidemiology of Gender Differences in Diabetes and Obesity. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2017;1043:3–8. pmid:29224087
  74. 74. Di Giosia P, Giorgini P, Stamerra CA, Petrarca M, Ferri C, Sahebkar A. Gender Differences in Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Treatment of Hypertension. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2018 Feb;20(3):13. pmid:29445908
  75. 75. Onder G, Rezza G, Brusaferro S. Case-Fatality Rate and Characteristics of Patients Dying in Relation to COVID-19 in Italy. JAMA—J Am Med Assoc. 2020;323(18):1775–6. pmid:32203977
  76. 76. Suleyman G, Fadel RA, Malette KM, Hammond C, Abdulla H, Entz A, et al. Clinical Characteristics and Morbidity Associated With Coronavirus Disease 2019 in a Series of Patients in Metropolitan Detroit. JAMA Netw open [Internet]. 2020;3(6):e2012270. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32543702 pmid:32543702