Dataset Information

Nosocomial infections among patients with COVID-19, SARS and MERS: a rapid review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background:COVID-19, a disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, has now spread to most countries and regions of the world. As patients potentially infected by SARS-CoV-2 need to visit hospitals, the incidence of nosocomial infection can be expected to be high. Therefore, a comprehensive and objective understanding of nosocomial infection is needed to guide the prevention and control of the epidemic. Methods:We searched major international and Chinese databases: Medicine, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, CBM (China Biology Medicine disc), CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) and Wanfang database for case series or case reports on nosocomial infections of COVID-19, SARS (severe acute respiratory syndromes) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) from their inception to March 31st, 2020. We conducted a meta-analysis of the proportion of nosocomial infection patients in the diagnosed patients, occupational distribution of nosocomial infection medical staff. Results:We included 40 studies. Among the confirmed patients, the proportions of nosocomial infections with early outbreaks of COVID-19, SARS, and MERS were 44.0%, 36.0%, and 56.0%, respectively. Of the confirmed patients, the medical staff and other hospital-acquired infections accounted for 33.0% and 2.0% of COVID-19 cases, 37.0% and 24.0% of SARS cases, and 19.0% and 36.0% of MERS cases, respectively. Nurses and doctors were the most affected among the infected medical staff. The mean numbers of secondary cases caused by one index patient were 29.3 and 6.3 for SARS and MERS, respectively. Conclusions:The proportion of nosocomial infection in patients with COVID-19 was 44% in the early outbreak. Patients attending hospitals should take personal protection. Medical staff should be awareness of the disease to protect themselves and the patients.

SUBMITTER: Zhou Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7290630 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nosocomial infections among patients with COVID-19, SARS and MERS: a rapid review and meta-analysis.

Zhou Qi Q Gao Yelei Y Wang Xingmei X Liu Rui R Du Peipei P Wang Xiaoqing X Zhang Xianzhuo X Lu Shuya S Wang Zijun Z Shi Qianling Q Li Weiguo W Ma Yanfang Y Luo Xufei X Fukuoka Toshio T Ahn Hyeong Sik HS Lee Myeong Soo MS Liu Enmei E Chen Yaolong Y Luo Zhengxiu Z Yang Kehu K

Annals of translational medicine 20200501 10

<h4>Background</h4>COVID-19, a disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, has now spread to most countries and regions of the world. As patients potentially infected by SARS-CoV-2 need to visit hospitals, the incidence of nosocomial infection can be expected to be high. Therefore, a comprehensive and objective understanding of nosocomial infection is needed to guide the prevention and control of the epidemic.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched major international and Chinese databases: Medicine, Web of S ...[more]

PMID: 32566566

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective:The aim of this systematic review was to report pregnancy and perinatal outcomes of coronavirus spectrum infections, and particularly coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) disease because of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 infection during pregnancy. Data Sources:Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched electronically utilizing combinations of word variants for coronavirus or severe acute respiratory syndrome or SARS or Middle East respiratory syndrome or MERS or COVID-19 and pregnancy. The search and selection criteria were restricted to English language. Study Eligibility Criteria:Inclusion criteria were hospitalized pregnant women with a confirmed coronavirus related-illness, defined as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or COVID-19. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods:We used meta-analyses of proportions to combine data and reported pooled proportions, so that a pooled proportion may not coincide with the actual raw proportion in the results. The pregnancy outcomes observed included miscarriage, preterm birth, preeclampsia, preterm prelabor rupture of membranes, fetal growth restriction, and mode of delivery. The perinatal outcomes observed were fetal distress, Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes, neonatal asphyxia, admission to a neonatal intensive care unit, perinatal death, and evidence of vertical transmission. Results:Nineteen studies including 79 hospitalized women were eligible for this systematic review: 41 pregnancies (51.9%) affected by COVID-19, 12 (15.2%) by MERS, and 26 (32.9%) by SARS. An overt diagnosis of pneumonia was made in 91.8%, and the most common symptoms were fever (82.6%), cough (57.1%), and dyspnea (27.0%). For all coronavirus infections, the pooled proportion of miscarriage was 64.7% (8/12; 95% confidence interval, 37.9-87.3), although reported only for women affected by SARS in two studies with no control group; the pooled proportion of preterm birth <37 weeks was 24.3% (14/56; 95% confidence interval, 12.5-38.6); premature prelabor rupture of membranes occurred in 20.7% (6/34; 95% confidence interval, 9.5-34.9), preeclampsia in 16.2% (2/19; 95% confidence interval, 4.2-34.1), and fetal growth restriction in 11.7% (2/29; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-24.4), although reported only for women affected by SARS; 84% (50/58) were delivered by cesarean; the pooled proportion of perinatal death was 11.1% (5/60; 95% confidence interval, 84.8-19.6), and 57.2% of newborns (3/12; 95% confidence interval, 3.6-99.8) were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit. When focusing on COVID-19, the most common adverse pregnancy outcome was preterm birth <37 weeks, occurring in 41.1% of cases (14/32; 95% confidence interval, 25.6-57.6), while the pooled proportion of perinatal death was 7.0% (2/41; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-16.3). None of the 41 newborns assessed showed clinical signs of vertical transmission. Conclusion:In hospitalized mothers infected with coronavirus infections, including COVID-19, >90% of whom also had pneumonia, preterm birth is the most common adverse pregnancy outcome. COVID-19 infection was associated with higher rate (and pooled proportions) of preterm birth, preeclampsia, cesarean, and perinatal death. There have been no published cases of clinical evidence of vertical transmission. Evidence is accumulating rapidly, so these data may need to be updated soon. The findings from this study can guide and enhance prenatal counseling of women with COVID-19 infection occurring during pregnancy, although they should be interpreted with caution in view of the very small number of included cases.

Project description:(1) Background: The use of corticosteroids in critical coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), or Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been controversial. However, a meta-analysis on the efficacy of steroids in treating these coronavirus infections is lacking. (2) Purpose: We assessed a methodological criticism on the quality of previous published meta-analyses and the risk of misleading conclusions with important therapeutic consequences. We also examined the evidence of the efficacy of corticosteroids in reducing mortality in SARS, MERS and COVID-19. (3) Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were used to identify studies published until 25 April 2020, that reported associations between steroid use and mortality in treating SARS/MERS/COVID-19. Two investigators screened and extracted data independently. Searches were restricted to studies on humans, and articles that did not report the exact number of patients in each group or data on mortality were excluded. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) under the fixed- and random-effect model. (4) Results: Eight articles (4051 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Among these selected studies, 3416 patients were diagnosed with SARS, 360 patients with MERS, and 275 with COVID-19; 60.3% patients were administered steroids. The meta-analyses including all studies showed no differences overall in terms of mortality (OR 1.152, 95% CI 0.631-2.101 in the random effects model, p = 0.645). However, this conclusion might be biased, because, in some studies, the patients in the steroid group had more severe symptoms than those in the control group. In contrast, when the meta-analysis was performed restricting only to studies that used appropriate adjustment (e.g., time, disease severity), there was a significant difference between the two groups (HR 0.378, 95% CI 0.221-0.646 in the random effects model, p < 0.0001). Although there was no difference in mortality when steroids were used in severe cases, there was a difference among the group with more underlying diseases (OR 3.133, 95% CI 1.670-5.877, p < 0.001). (5) Conclusions: To our knowledge, this study is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis providing the most accurate evidence on the effect of steroids in coronavirus infections. If not contraindicated, and in the absence of side effects, the use of steroids should be considered in coronavirus infection including COVID-19.

Project description:Concern regarding coronavirus (CoV) outbreaks has stayed relevant to global health in the last decades. Emerging COVID-19 infection, caused by the novel SARS-CoV2, is now a pandemic, bringing a substantial burden to human health. Interferon (IFN), combined with other antivirals and various treatments, has been used to treat and prevent MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV2 infections. We aimed to assess the clinical efficacy of IFN-based treatments and combinational therapy with antivirals, corticosteroids, traditional medicine, and other treatments. Major healthcare databases and grey literature were investigated. A three-stage screening was utilized, and included studies were checked against the protocol eligibility criteria. Risk of bias assessment and data extraction were performed, followed by narrative data synthesis. Fifty-five distinct studies of SARS-CoV2, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV were spotted. Our narrative synthesis showed a possible benefit in the use of IFN. A good quality cohort showed lower CRP levels in Arbidol (ARB) + IFN group vs. IFN only group. Another study reported a significantly shorter chest X-ray (CXR) resolution in IFN-Alfacon-1 + corticosteroid group compared with the corticosteroid only group in SARS-CoV patients. In a COVID-19 trial, total adverse drug events (ADEs) were much lower in the Favipiravir (FPV) + IFN-α group compared with the LPV/RTV arm (P = 0.001). Also, nausea in patients receiving FPV + IFN-α regimen was significantly lower (P = 0.03). Quantitative analysis of mortality did not show a conclusive effect for IFN/RBV treatment in six moderately heterogeneous MERS-CoV studies (log OR = -0.05, 95% CI: (-0.71,0.62), I2 = 44.71%). A meta-analysis of three COVID-19 studies did not show a conclusive nor meaningful relation between receiving IFN and COVID-19 severity (log OR = -0.44, 95% CI: (-1.13,0.25), I2 = 31.42%). A lack of high-quality cohorts and controlled trials was observed. Evidence suggests the potential efficacy of several combination IFN therapies such as lower ADEs, quicker resolution of CXR, or a decrease in inflammatory cytokines; Still, these options must possibly be further explored before being recommended in public guidelines. For all major CoVs, our results may indicate a lack of a definitive effect of IFN treatment on mortality. We recommend such therapeutics be administered with extreme caution until further investigation uncovers high-quality evidence in favor of IFN or combination therapy with IFN.

Project description:IntroductionThe novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) outbreak currently puts health care workers at high risk of both physical and mental health problems. This study aimed to identify the risk and protective factors for mental health outcomes in health care workers during coronavirus epidemics.MethodsA rapid systematic review was performed in three databases (March 24, 2020) and a current COVID-19 resource (May 28, 2020). Following study selection, study characteristics and effect measures were tabulated, and data were synthesized by using vote counting. Meta-analysis was not possible because of high variation in risk factors, outcomes and effect measures. Risk of bias of each study was assessed and the certainty of evidence was appraised according to the GRADE methodology.ResultsOut of 2605 references, 33 observational studies were selected and the identified risk and protective factors were categorized in ten thematic categories. Most of these studies (n = 23) were performed during the SARS outbreak, seven during the current COVID-19 pandemic and three during the MERS outbreak. The level of disease exposure and health fear were significantly associated with worse mental health outcomes. There was evidence that clear communication and support from the organization, social support and personal sense of control are protective factors. The evidence was of very low certainty, because of risk of bias and imprecision.ConclusionSafeguarding mental health of health care workers during infectious disease outbreaks should not be treated as a separate mental health intervention strategy, but could benefit from a protective approach. This study suggests that embedding mental health support in a safe and efficient working environment which promotes collegial social support and personal sense of control could help to maximize resilience of health care workers. Low quality cross-sectional studies currently provide the best possible evidence, and further research is warranted to confirm causality.

Dataset Information

Nosocomial infections among patients with COVID-19, SARS and MERS: a rapid review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Nosocomial infections among patients with COVID-19, SARS and MERS: a rapid review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets