Cargando…
ABO and Rh blood groups and risk of infection: systematic review and meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: Persons with non-O and Rh-positive blood types are purported to be more susceptible to infection, including SARS-CoV-2, but there remains uncertainty about the degree to which this is so for both non-viral and viral infections. METHODS: We systematically reviewed Embase and PubMed from J...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10647048/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37964217 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-023-08792-x |
_version_ | 1785147488838090752 |
---|---|
author | Butler, Emily Ana Parikh, Rushil Grandi, Sonia M. Ray, Joel G. Cohen, Eyal |
author_facet | Butler, Emily Ana Parikh, Rushil Grandi, Sonia M. Ray, Joel G. Cohen, Eyal |
author_sort | Butler, Emily Ana |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Persons with non-O and Rh-positive blood types are purported to be more susceptible to infection, including SARS-CoV-2, but there remains uncertainty about the degree to which this is so for both non-viral and viral infections. METHODS: We systematically reviewed Embase and PubMed from January 1(st) 1960 to May 31(st) 2022. English-language publications were selected that separately investigated the relation between ABO and/or Rh blood group and risk of SARS-CoV-2 and non-SARS-CoV-2 infection. Pooled odds ratios (OR(p)) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were then generated for each. RESULTS: Non-O blood groups had a higher OR(p) for SARS-CoV-2 than O blood groups, both within 22 case–control studies (2.13, 95% CI 1.49- 3.04) and 15 cohort studies (1.89, 95% CI 1.56- 2.29). For non-SARS-CoV-2 viral infections, the respective OR(p) were 1.98 (95% CI 1.49–2.65; 4 case–control studies) and 1.87 (95% CI 1.53–2.29; 12 cohort studies). For non-viral infections, the OR(p) were 1.56 (95% CI 0.98–2.46; 13 case–control studies) and 2.11 (95% CI 1.67–6.67; 4 cohort studies). Rh-positive status had a higher OR(p) for SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 case–control studies (13.83, 95% CI 6.18–30.96) and 6 cohort studies (19.04, 95% CI 11.63–31.17), compared to Rh-negative persons. For Rh status, non-SARS-CoV-2 infections, the OR(p) were 23.45 (95% CI 16.28–33.76) among 7 case–control studies, and 9.25 (95% CI 2.72–31.48) within 4 cohort studies. High measures of heterogeneity were notably observed for all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Non-O and Rh-positive blood status are each associated with a higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, in addition to other viral and non-viral infections. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-023-08792-x. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10647048 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-106470482023-11-14 ABO and Rh blood groups and risk of infection: systematic review and meta-analysis Butler, Emily Ana Parikh, Rushil Grandi, Sonia M. Ray, Joel G. Cohen, Eyal BMC Infect Dis Research BACKGROUND: Persons with non-O and Rh-positive blood types are purported to be more susceptible to infection, including SARS-CoV-2, but there remains uncertainty about the degree to which this is so for both non-viral and viral infections. METHODS: We systematically reviewed Embase and PubMed from January 1(st) 1960 to May 31(st) 2022. English-language publications were selected that separately investigated the relation between ABO and/or Rh blood group and risk of SARS-CoV-2 and non-SARS-CoV-2 infection. Pooled odds ratios (OR(p)) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were then generated for each. RESULTS: Non-O blood groups had a higher OR(p) for SARS-CoV-2 than O blood groups, both within 22 case–control studies (2.13, 95% CI 1.49- 3.04) and 15 cohort studies (1.89, 95% CI 1.56- 2.29). For non-SARS-CoV-2 viral infections, the respective OR(p) were 1.98 (95% CI 1.49–2.65; 4 case–control studies) and 1.87 (95% CI 1.53–2.29; 12 cohort studies). For non-viral infections, the OR(p) were 1.56 (95% CI 0.98–2.46; 13 case–control studies) and 2.11 (95% CI 1.67–6.67; 4 cohort studies). Rh-positive status had a higher OR(p) for SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 case–control studies (13.83, 95% CI 6.18–30.96) and 6 cohort studies (19.04, 95% CI 11.63–31.17), compared to Rh-negative persons. For Rh status, non-SARS-CoV-2 infections, the OR(p) were 23.45 (95% CI 16.28–33.76) among 7 case–control studies, and 9.25 (95% CI 2.72–31.48) within 4 cohort studies. High measures of heterogeneity were notably observed for all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Non-O and Rh-positive blood status are each associated with a higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, in addition to other viral and non-viral infections. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-023-08792-x. BioMed Central 2023-11-14 /pmc/articles/PMC10647048/ /pubmed/37964217 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-023-08792-x Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Butler, Emily Ana Parikh, Rushil Grandi, Sonia M. Ray, Joel G. Cohen, Eyal ABO and Rh blood groups and risk of infection: systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | ABO and Rh blood groups and risk of infection: systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | ABO and Rh blood groups and risk of infection: systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | ABO and Rh blood groups and risk of infection: systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | ABO and Rh blood groups and risk of infection: systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | ABO and Rh blood groups and risk of infection: systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | abo and rh blood groups and risk of infection: systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10647048/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37964217 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-023-08792-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT butleremilyana aboandrhbloodgroupsandriskofinfectionsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT parikhrushil aboandrhbloodgroupsandriskofinfectionsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT grandisoniam aboandrhbloodgroupsandriskofinfectionsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT rayjoelg aboandrhbloodgroupsandriskofinfectionsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT coheneyal aboandrhbloodgroupsandriskofinfectionsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |