Dataset Information

How is immunosuppressive status affecting children and adults in SARS-CoV-2 infection? A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

SARS-CoV-2 infection has now a global resonance. Data on how COVID-19 is affecting immunocompromised patients are however few. With our study we aimed to systematically review the current knowledge on SARS-CoV-2 cases in children and adults with immunosuppression, to evaluate outcomes in this special population.

Methods

A systematic review of literature was carried out to identify relevant articles, searching the EMBASE, Medline, and Google Scholar databases. Studies reporting data on pre-defined outcomes and related to immunosuppressed adults and children with SARS-CoV-2 were included.

Results

Sixteen relevant articles were identified with 110 immunosuppressed patients, mostly presenting cancer, along with transplantation and immunodeficiency. Cancer was more often associated with a more severe course, but not necessarily with a bad prognosis. Our data show that both children and adults with immunosuppression seem to have a favorable disease course, as compared to the general population.

Conclusion

Immunosuppressed patients with COVID-19 seem to be few in relation to the overall figures, and to present a favorable outcome as compared to other comorbidities. This might be explained by a hypothetical protective role of a weaker immune response, determining a milder disease presentation and thus underdiagnosis. Nevertheless, surveillance on this special population should be encouraged.

SUBMITTER: Minotti C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7179496 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe degree to which children and adolescents are infected by and transmit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is unclear. The role of children and adolescents in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is dependent on susceptibility, symptoms, viral load, social contact patterns, and behavior.ObjectiveTo systematically review the susceptibility to and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among children and adolescents compared with adults.Data sourcesPubMed and medRxiv were searched from database inception to July 28, 2020, and a total of 13 926 studies were identified, with additional studies identified through hand searching of cited references and professional contacts.Study selectionStudies that provided data on the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adolescents (younger than 20 years) compared with adults (20 years and older) derived from contact tracing or population screening were included. Single-household studies were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisPRISMA guidelines for abstracting data were followed, which was performed independently by 2 reviewers. Quality was assessed using a critical appraisal checklist for prevalence studies. Random-effects meta-analysis was undertaken.Main outcomes and measuresSecondary infection rate (contact-tracing studies) or prevalence or seroprevalence (population screening studies) among children and adolescents compared with adults.ResultsA total of 32 studies comprising 41 640 children and adolescents and 268 945 adults met inclusion criteria, including 18 contact-tracing studies and 14 population screening studies. The pooled odds ratio of being an infected contact in children compared with adults was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.37-0.85), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 94.6%). Three school-based contact-tracing studies found minimal transmission from child or teacher index cases. Findings from population screening studies were heterogenous and were not suitable for meta-analysis. Most studies were consistent with lower seroprevalence in children compared with adults, although seroprevalence in adolescents appeared similar to adults.Conclusions and relevanceIn this meta-analysis, there is preliminary evidence that children and adolescents have lower susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2, with an odds ratio of 0.56 for being an infected contact compared with adults. There is weak evidence that children and adolescents play a lesser role than adults in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at a population level. This study provides no information on the infectivity of children.

Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate the proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infected children experiencing hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, severe outcomes, and death.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, and MedRxiv were searched for studies published between December 1, 2019 and May 28, 2021. References of relevant systematic reviews were also screened.Study selectionWe included cohort or cross-sectional studies reporting on at least one outcome measure (i.e., hospitalization, ICU admission, severe outcomes, death) for ≥100 children ≤21 years old within 28 days of SARS-CoV-2 positivity; no language restrictions were applied.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Estimates were pooled using random effects models. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.Main outcomes and measuresPercentage of SARS-CoV-2 positive children experiencing hospitalization, ICU admission, severe outcome, and death.Results118 studies representing 3,324,851 SARS-CoV-2 infected children from 68 countries were included. Community-based studies (N = 48) reported that 3.3% (95%CI: 2.7-4.0%) of children were hospitalized, 0.3% (95%CI: 0.2-0.6%) were admitted to the ICU, 0.1% (95%CI: 0.0-2.2%) experienced a "severe" outcome and 0.02% (95%CI: 0.001-0.05%) died. Hospital-based screening studies (N = 39) reported that 23.9% (95%CI: 19.0-29.2%) of children were hospitalized, 2.9% (95%CI: 2.1-3.8%) were admitted to the ICU, 1.3% (95%CI: 0.5-2.3%) experienced a severe outcome, and 0.2% (95%CI: 0.02-0.5%) died. Studies of hospitalized children (N = 31) reported that 10.1% (95%CI: 6.1-14.9%) of children required ICU admission, 4.2% (95%CI: 0.0-13.8%) had a severe outcome and 1.1% (95%CI: 0.2-2.3%) died. Low risk of bias studies, those from high-income countries, and those reporting outcomes later in the pandemic presented lower estimates. However, studies reporting outcomes after May 31, 2020, compared to earlier publications, had higher proportions of hospitalized patients requiring ICU admission and experiencing severe outcomes.Conclusion and relevanceAmong children tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 3.3% were hospitalized, with rates being higher early in the pandemic. Severe outcomes, ICU admission and death were uncommon, however estimates vary by study population, pandemic timing, study risk of bias, and economic status of the country.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO, identifier [CRD42021260164].

Project description:This systematic review was conducted to summarize and clarify the evidence on the association between 25-hydroxyvitamin-D [25(OH)D] concentrations and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) risk and outcomes. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases and Google Scholar were searched up to 26 November 2020. All retrospective and prospective cohort, cross-sectional, case-control, and randomized controlled trial studies that investigated the relation between 25(OH)D and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and COVID-19 severity were included. Thirty-nine studies were included in the current systematic review. In studies that were adjusted (OR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.24, 2.53; I2: 44.2%) and nonadjusted for confounders (OR: 1.75; 95% CI: 1.44, 2.13; I2: 33.0%) there was a higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the vitamin D deficiency (VDD) group. Fifteen studies evaluated associations between VDD and composite severity. In the studies that were adjusted (OR: 2.57; 95% CI: 1.65, 4.01; I2 = 0.0%) and nonadjusted for confounders (OR: 10.61; 95% CI: 2.07, 54.23; I2 = 90.8%) there was a higher severity in the VDD group. Analysis of studies with crude OR (OR: 2.62; 95% CI: 1.13, 6.05; I2: 47.9%), and adjusted studies that used the Cox survival method (HR: 7.67; 95% CI: 3.92, 15.03; I2: 0.0%) indicated a significant association of VDD with mortality, while in adjusted studies that used logistic regression, no relation was observed (OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.75; I2: 76.6%). The results of studies that examined relations between VDD and intensive care unit (ICU) admission, pulmonary complications, hospitalization, and inflammation were inconsistent. In conclusion, although studies were heterogeneous in methodological and statistical approach, most of them indicated a significant relation between 25(OH)D and SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 composite severity, and mortality. With regard to infection, caution should be taken in interpreting the results, due to inherent study limitations. For ICU admission, inflammation, hospitalization, and pulmonary involvement, the evidence is currently inconsistent and insufficient.

Project description:BackgroundProgress in characterising the humoral immune response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been rapid but areas of uncertainty persist. Assessment of the full range of evidence generated to date to understand the characteristics of the antibody response, its dynamics over time, its determinants and the immunity it confers will have a range of clinical and policy implications for this novel pathogen. This review comprehensively evaluated evidence describing the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 published from 01/01/2020-26/06/2020.MethodsSystematic review. Keyword-structured searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19 Primer. Articles were independently screened on title, abstract and full text by two researchers, with arbitration of disagreements. Data were double-extracted into a pre-designed template, and studies critically appraised using a modified version of the Public Health Ontario Meta-tool for Quality Appraisal of Public Health Evidence (MetaQAT) tool, with resolution of disagreements by consensus. Findings were narratively synthesised.Results150 papers were included. Most studies (113 or 75%) were observational in design, were based wholly or primarily on data from hospitalised patients (108, 72%) and had important methodological limitations. Few considered mild or asymptomatic infection. Antibody dynamics were well described in the acute phase, up to around three months from disease onset, but the picture regarding correlates of the antibody response was inconsistent. IgM was consistently detected before IgG in included studies, peaking at weeks two to five and declining over a further three to five weeks post-symptom onset depending on the patient group; IgG peaked around weeks three to seven post-symptom onset then plateaued, generally persisting for at least eight weeks. Neutralising antibodies were detectable within seven to 15 days following disease onset, with levels increasing until days 14-22 before levelling and then decreasing, but titres were lower in those with asymptomatic or clinically mild disease. Specific and potent neutralising antibodies have been isolated from convalescent plasma. Cross-reactivity but limited cross-neutralisation with other human coronaviridae was reported. Evidence for protective immunity in vivo was limited to small, short-term animal studies, showing promising initial results in the immediate recovery phase.ConclusionsLiterature on antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 is of variable quality with considerable heterogeneity of methods, study participants, outcomes measured and assays used. Although acute phase antibody dynamics are well described, longer-term patterns are much less well evidenced. Comprehensive assessment of the role of demographic characteristics and disease severity on antibody responses is needed. Initial findings of low neutralising antibody titres and possible waning of titres over time may have implications for sero-surveillance and disease control policy, although further evidence is needed. The detection of potent neutralising antibodies in convalescent plasma is important in the context of development of therapeutics and vaccines. Due to limitations with the existing evidence base, large, cross-national cohort studies using appropriate statistical analysis and standardised serological assays and clinical classifications should be prioritised.