The isolated effect of age on the risk of COVID-19 severe outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Search, selection, and data extraction

This systematic review was based on an umbrella review on pre-existing health conditions and severe COVID-19 outcomes published elsewhere (14). To summarize, on December 11, 2020 a systematic search for systematic reviews was done in PubMed and Embase, with hand searches on preprint servers (search string in supplement). The included systematic reviews investigated the association between at least one chronic health condition and a severe COVID-19 outcome, such as hospitalization, ICU admission, intubation, or death. After screening the titles and abstracts, followed by full text screening, 120 systematic reviews were included (Figure S1). Then, primary studies included in these reviews were screened. They were included in the analysis if they reported at least one quantitative measure of association in persons with pre-existing health conditions and at least one age-adjusted estimate. 160 primary studies were included in the umbrella review (Figure S2) (14).

To find adequate primary studies for the purpose of our research question regarding age and COVID-19 disease severity, we excluded studies investigating special populations, such as cancer patients or persons with diabetes. Studies were included if the age effect had been adjusted for at least three of the following comorbidities: diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, cancer/immunodeficiency, chronic kidney disease, chronic liver disease, and chronic pulmonary disease (see Table 1 for eligibility criteria). Two independent scientists screened the full texts of the studies. In case of disagreement, a consensus decision was sought between both scientists. If no agreement was achieved, the decision was made by a third reviewer.

Data extraction was done by one reviewer and checked by another one. In case of missing information, study authors were contacted. The data extraction form included information on the first author, publication year, country of origin, study population, age and sex characteristics, outcome assessment, confounders, analysis methods, and results. A protocol of the review was registered a priori with the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=220614).

Risk of Bias Assessment

We evaluated the overall risk of bias for each study as “low” or “high”, and followed the procedure for assessment based on Ijaz et al. 2013 (15), with modifications (13, 16). We also considered the criteria described by SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines, 2012) (17) and CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) (18). We assessed eight domain: 1) recruitment procedure and follow-up 2) exposure definition and measurement, 3) outcome definition and measurement, 4) inclusion of important age-dependent risk factors, 5) analysis method, 6) chronology, 7) funding, and 8) conflict of interest. Each domain was characterized as having a low, high, or unclear risk of bias (see supplementary material for a detailed description). Domains 1-5 and 6-8 were major and minor domains, respectively. A study was evaluated as having an overall low risk of bias if all major domains had a low risk of bias.

Data synthesis

We evaluated studies using age categories and calculated the median of each of the age categories. If lower and upper categories were open ended, we used reasonable values based on the youngest and oldest participants included. For the younger open-ended age groups, we chose a lower boundary of 18 years if the population encompassed adults only. The median value of 18 years and the upper boundary of the lower open-ended age category was estimated. For the older open-ended age groups an upper boundary of 95 years of age was chosen and a median value was similarly calculated. However, these values were also modified in a sensitivity analysis. If studies only had risks of binary categories of age, such as >60 years vs ≤60 years, they were excluded from the meta-analysis. A log-linear model and a log-cubic model was constructed weighted for variance, and the Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) for each model was evaluated. The log of the relative risk (RR) was then plotted against the age mid-points to assess linearity for the specific outcome studied, first for each individual study, and then for all studies using categorized age. We wanted to assess whether (a) there is an age threshold present at which the ln(RR) increases and (b) whether a log-linear relationship for the categorical studies would be a reasonable assumption. If a log-linear association could be assumed, a risk effect per year was obtained by using the Generalized Least Squares for trend estimation of summarized dose-response data (glst) (19). If the number of cases per age category was unknown, the risk estimate was obtained by variance-weighted least squares (vwls). If the log-linear association could be assumed, then the studies using categorical values were pooled with the ones using continuous values through a random-effects meta-analysis using the metan package (20). A similar procedure has been done before (15, 21). If two studies investigated the same population, the study with the highest quality was chosen. Odds ratios (OR) were converted to RRs using the formula proposed by Zhang and Yu 1998 (22) when the prevalence in the reference group was greater than 10% to avoid an overestimation of the RRs.

We compared the pooled effects of studies using continuous values for age and those using categorical values. Heterogeneity was assessed by I² values, and publication bias was explored using Funnel plots and Egger’s test (metabias) if there were at least ten studies. Stata Version 14.2 (StatCorp, College Station, TX, USA) was used.

2.4 Assessment of the quality of the total body of evidence

We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for grading the quality of the total body of evidence (23), following the example of Hulshof et al. 2019 (24), with modifications (25). The quality of evidence was either high, moderate, or low. Since only observational studies were included, the starting level was set to “moderate”. The quality was downgraded based on four factors: study limitations, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias. If study findings had large effect sizes, if there were dose-response relationships, or if the presence of residual confounding was suspected (increasing the confidence in the association), the quality of evidence was upgraded. For the effect size evaluation, we considered the difference in risk due to age between a person entering adulthood (18 years) and the worldwide life expectancy (72 years) (26), a difference of 54 years.

In-hospital mortality

Forty-four studies investigating the risk of in-hospital mortality, meaning the risk of mortality in hospitalized patients, were included. Most studies were set in Western countries, such as USA (n=21), Europe (n=13), and Latin America (n=2). Six studies were set in China, one in South Africa, and one in South Korea. Nineteen studies reported the risk of in-hospital mortality per age year, while the others used age categories to report the effect of age on risk. The results can be seen in Table S3. From the 44 studies, eight studies (28, 30, 34, 48, 64, 72, 75, 77) were assessed as having a low risk of bias. The majority had a high risk of bias because not all six age-dependent comorbidities were included in the model, while some used rough age categories in their models (greater than 10 years or a binary age category such as >60 years vs ≤60 years) (Table S4).

Thirty-one studies were included in the meta-analysis. Six studies (27, 37, 58, 65, 67, 83) were excluded because of the use of a binary age category, while one was excluded because the risk was reported by an age z-score, making it hard to compare to the other studies (81). Four studies were excluded from the main meta-analysis because they investigated mortality only on critically-ill hospitalized patients or patients with COVID-19 cytokine storm (43, 50, 53, 72). Two studies (36, 56) investigated the same study population, but Carter and Collins et al. 2020 (36) was chosen because this study had adjusted for more age-related risk factors. Likewise, Shi et al. 2020 (84) and Zhao et al. 2020 (95) used the same population. The former study was used because it reported age as a continuous factor, rather than a very rough age category. For the studies using age as categorical variables, the age and log of RR were modeled as linear and cubic relationships and plotted (Figure S3). Although the weighted cubic model had a lower AIC value (−71.8) than the weighted linear model (−62.5), the cubic model showed no evidence of a rapid increase in the slope at a specific age. At around age 70, there was a downturn in the slope which did not follow the points, indicating a possible better fit with a fractional or higher-level polynomial relationship. We assumed a log-linear relationship for simplicity, as at least for the ranges 20 to 70 years there seemed to be no conflict with that assumption. A per-year effect was calculated for studies using age categories and they were included in the meta-analysis.

The pooled RR for the 31 studies was 1.046 (95% CI: 1.039-1.054) per age year (Table 2). The funnel plot was asymmetric (Figure S4; Egger’s test p<0.0001), but the funnel plot using age as a continuous variable differed from the one using age derived from categories (Figure S5a-b). Upon closer look, the pooled RR of studies using age as a continuous variable (16 studies, 52%) was higher than the pooled RR of studies dividing age into categories (RR_{age continuous}=1.057; 95% CI 1.047-1.067; RR_{age categories}=1.037; 95% CI 1.028-1.046). Since the calculated midpoints from the age categories might be inaccurate, we hypothesized that the RR of studies using a higher number of age categories would be closer to the RR_{age continuous}. Indeed, studies having more than four age categories had a pooled RR of 1.039 (95% CI 1.026-1.053), whereas studies with four or less age categories had a pooled RR of 1.030 (95% CI 1.020-1.041). We divided studies by age category width (5 vs. 10 vs. 10+ years intervals) and found that the effect estimate was lowest with studies using the widest age categories (10+ years RR=1.030; 95% CI 1.021-1.039), followed by studies using 10-year categories (RR=1.046; 95% CI 1.040-1.051). Only one study used a 5-year age category, having the highest estimate (RR=1.060; 95%CI 1.051-1.070). Because of probable bias using different age categories, further analyses for in-hospital mortality focused on studies using age as a continuous variable (Table 2). The pooled RR did not differ by study quality. Studies from USA, Europe, and South Korea had similar pooled RRs, whereas as the pooled RR for the Chinese studies was lower (RR=1.041; 95% CI 0.999-1.085). The unadjusted and adjusted RRs on studies reporting both values were similar (RR_unadjusted=1.060, 95% CI: 1.034-1.086; RR_adjusted=1.059, 95% CI: 1.037-1.081).

Case Mortality

Fourteen studies investigating case mortality were included, in which mortality was ascertained in individuals who had tested positive for COVID-19. Five studies were from USA (52, 54, 61, 90, 92), three studies originated from Europe (34, 78, 79), three from Latin America (35, 86, 87), and one each from China (51), South Africa (33), and South Korea (66). The results can be seen in Table S5. Three studies (21%) were rated as having a low risk of bias. Most of the studies had a high risk of bias because they did not adjust for all age-dependent risk factors, the age categories were quite wide, and the recruitment procedure indicated a possible selection bias (i.e. such as recruitment of only symptomatic people or people who presented for care at hospitals without being hospitalized, or if ICD codes used for recruitment were not necessarily related to COVID-19) (Table S6).

Eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis, of which the majority used age categories (8 of 11). One study was excluded due to the use of binary age categories (87). One study (54) reported the age year RR within age categories, and therefore it was not possible to compare to the other studies. Two studies used the same study population (35, 86), but Solis et al. 2020 (86) was chosen because the study had adjusted for more age-related factors and it had used a higher number of age categories.

The cubic model showed a relatively flat relationship between log(RR) and age from ages 40 to 85 years (Figure S6). Because both models had similar AIC values (linear: −157.4; cubic: −159.3), we assumed a linear model.

The meta-analysis resulted in a pooled RR of 1.074 (95% CI 1.061-1.087) per age year (Table 4). The respective funnel plot showed asymmetry (Figure S7), although Egger’s test was not significant (p=0.320). The pooled RR of studies using continuous (RR=1.063; 95% CI 1.043-1.084) and categorical (RR=1.078; 1.059-1.097) age variables differed. However, since the 95% CI values overlapped, there was no significant difference observed. We divided studies by age category width (5 vs. 10 vs. 10+-year intervals) and again found that the effect estimate was lowest with studies using the widest age categories (10+ years RR=1.042; 95% CI 1.028-1.056; 10 years RR=1.080; 95% CI 1.057-1.103) and highest for studies using the most narrow age of five years (RR=1.094; 95% CI 1.082-1.107).

The high-quality studies had a higher RR per age than low quality studies (RR_{high quality}=1.094, 95% CI: 1.082-1.106; RR_{low quality}=1.069; 95% CI: 1.056-1.083). European studies (n=3) had the highest pooled RR (RR= 1.100; 95% CI 1.075-1.125), followed by USA studies (RR= 1.061; 95% CI 1.075-1.125). Other regions had only one study, so a reliable comparison was not possible. The unadjusted and adjusted RRs on studies reporting both values were similar (RR_unadjusted=1.079; 95% CI: 1.062-1.097; RR_adjusted=1.072; 95% CI: 1.054-1.091).

Hospitalization

A summary of the results of studies investigating risk of hospitalization by age can be seen in Table S7. The study population typically used were individuals who were positive for COVID-19, some of which were hospitalized due to complications related to the infection. Sixteen studies were included, of which nine originated in the USA (29, 38, 47, 52, 63, 76, 77, 91, 96), three in Europe (34, 78, 79), three in Latin America (35, 49, 85), and one in Israel (70). Four (25%) of the studies had a low risk of bias, and the reasons for high risk of bias were mainly the lack of adjustment for all pre-defined age-related risk factors and the use of binary or rough age categories (Table S8).

Of the sixteen studies, eleven were included in the meta-analysis. Ebinger et al. 2020 (47) was excluded because the outcome was complex with reference categories that could not be compared to other studies (hospitalized/non-ICU vs. ICU/non-intubated vs ICU/intubated). Carrillo-Vega et al. 2020 (35) and Giannouchos et al. 2020 (49) used the same study population, but the latter was used because the study had more age categories and adjusted for a higher number of age-related risk factors. Furthermore, two studies (70, 85) used binary age categories and one did not provide confidence intervals (63). Most studies (8 of 11) used age categories.

The results of the weighted linear and cubic models of studies using age categories are shown in Figure S8. Although the AIC values for the linear model were higher than for the cubic model (−57.2 vs −21.7, we did choose the linear model because of a lack of threshold where the rate increases with age and because the age range modeled appeared as a linear relationship.

The pooled RR for all studies was 1.034 (95% CI: 1.021-1.048). The funnel plot looked asymmetric (Figure S9), but Egger’s test was statistically not-significant (p=0.439). The RR of studies using continuous and categorical age values were very similar (Table 4), noting that most studies (63%) using age categories utilized more than four age categories. Again, using a finer age width increased the RR for studies using age categories (10+ years RR=1.024 95% CI: 1.018-1.030; 10 years RR=1.040 95%CI: 1.037-1.043; 5 years RR=1.056 95% CI:1.055.1.057). The pooled effect for high-quality studies was higher than for low quality studies (RR_{high quality} =1.051, 95% CI: 1.040-1.061; RR_{low quality}=1.025; 95% CI: 1.019-1.032). Moreover, the European studies had a higher pooled risk (RR=1.047; 95% CI: 1.034-1.060) than the USA studies (RR=1.033, 95% CI: 1.025-1.042), but the difference was not statistically significant. The unadjusted RR values were slightly higher than the adjusted values (RR_unadjusted=1.045, 95% CI: 1.026-1.065; RR_adjusted=1.031, 95% CI: 1.009-1.053).

Admission to ICU

Twelve studies investigated the effect of age on admission to ICU. Typically, the studies used hospitalized individuals as the study population and followed them up (retrospectively or prospectively). Eight studies originated in the USA (28, 55, 61, 64, 77, 82, 88, 96) and four were from China (32, 46, 51, 89). A summary of the results can be seen in Table S9. Four (33%) of the studies were of high quality (low risk of bias). Similar to the other outcomes, the reasons for a high risk of bias were mainly due to the confounding domain, and to a lesser extent, to the exposure domain (rough age categories) (Table S10).

Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. Du et al. 2020 (46) was not included. Due to the nature of its complex outcome, it could not be compared to other studies. Two studies evaluated the risk of ICU on individuals who had tested positive to COVID-19 (51, 96), and one study used a binary age category (88).

The pooled RR for the studies was 1.006 (95% CI: 0.999-1.013). Five studies (63%) used age as a continuous variable, and these studies had only a slightly lower RR (1.003; 95% CI: 0.996-1.010) compared to the ones using age as a categorical value (RR=1.013; 95% CI: 0.998-1.028), but still the effect was statistically not-significant for both. The high quality studies had a slightly lower RR than the low quality studies (RR_{high quality}=1.004, 95% CI: 0.996-1.013; RR_{low quality}=1.011; 95% CI: 0.996-1.026), but again both estimates were not statistically-significant (Table 4).

Mechanical ventilation (intubation)

Seven studies investigated the effect of age on the risk of intubation, using individuals hospitalized due to COVID-19. All studies were set in the USA (42, 55, 74, 82, 88, 91), and a summary of the results can be seen in Table S11. No studies had a low risk of bias (high quality), either due to the “confounding” or “exposure assessment” domain (Table S12). Half of the studies used age categories, and the effect estimate was similar for studies using a continuous and a categorical age variable. One study (88) was excluded from the meta-analysis because it used a binary category for age. The pooled RR showed a very weak statistically not-significant increase in risk per age year (RR=1.006; 95% CI 0.995-1.018) (Table 4).

Quality of evidence

Since only observational studies were included, the initial level of evidence was set at “moderate”. After decreasing a level for unclear publication bias, and increasing two levels for dose-response effect and two levels for a large effect estimate, the overall certainty of evidence was high for both risk of in-hospital mortality and case mortality. For hospitalization, after downgrading for high inconsistency and unclear publication bias, and upgrading for dose response, effect estimate, and effect size, the overall certainty of evidence was high (Table 5).

There was no statistically-significant effect observed for admission to ICU and intubation. Hence, these outcomes were not included in the assessment.

Methodological quality of the included studies

Although high-quality studies were present for every outcome except mechanical ventilation, low-quality studies dominated. High-quality studies had the same effect estimate as low-quality studies for in-hospital mortality, but for case mortality and hospitalization, low-quality studies underestimated the isolated effect of age. The main reason for a low risk of bias was the lack of adjustment for all age-related risk factors in the domain “confounding”. Moreover, considering the “recruitment” domain, some studies included participants who used clinical symptoms as a COVID-19 case, which is less accurate than a RT-PCR test. It should be mentioned that the recruitment domain could have potentially been high risk for most studies, as in the early stages of the pandemic, RT-PCR testing was relatively scarce, and only individuals with symptoms or who had direct contact with a positive person were tested in some countries. Furthermore, some studies used rough age categories which will lead to an inaccurate risk effect. Lastly, some studies corrected for biomarkers or factors (such as fever, d-Dimer level, lymphocyte count) that reflect disease severity. When studying associations between disease severity and age and chronic factors, using such markers in the model should be avoided to avoid overadjustment.

Implications for practice, policy, and future research

During the COVID-19 pandemic, it is necessary to accurately define risk groups for COVID-19 disease severity when implementing contact or work restrictions. This review shows that increased age year is associated with mortality and hospitalization, and an age threshold for which there is a marked increase in risk was not apparent. Therefore, targetting persons above a certain (arbitrary) age threshold is not recommended in the workplace, as it may lead to ageism, permeating in the community and in the workplace (100). If workers older than 60 years are not allowed to perform a work task because of perceived higher risk of disease severity starting at that age, it is difficult to argue why a person can still perform that activity at age 59, but must stop it or needs special protection on their 60^th birthday. Rather, individualized risk profiles should be made by considering a continuous increase in risk by age-year.

Contrary to workplace restrictions, the use of an isolated, per-age year increase when prioritizing vaccinations is not recommended. Government agencies often divide the population in age groups- but this categorization is not purely about age-related effects. Rather, the high-age groups always include a higher proportion of individuals with pre-exisiting conditions. In this respect, our result of an approximately linear increase in isolated age risk cannot be used as an argument against the definition of vaccination prioritization groups.

This comprehensive review contradicts our previous rapid review (13), which encompassed mainly Chinese studies and indicated a weak influence of age on COVID-19 disease severity. This highlights the need for continuous, “living” reviews of the available evidence throughout the pandemic, as results may change due to more available evidence available or to new variants affecting the association between age and disease severity. Further, as there are hints of possible effect modifications between age and certain chronic diseases (14), future studies should focus on quantifying these interactions.