Co-infection of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Dao T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8349735 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8956294 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and Aim: Co-infection of COVID-19 with other respiratory pathogens which may complicate the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of COVID-19 emerge new concern. The overlap of COVID-19 and influenza, as two epidemics at the same time can occur in the cold months of the year. The aim of current study was to evaluate the rate of such co-infection as a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed on September 28, 2019 for original research articles published in Medline, Web of Science, and Embase databases from December 2019 to September 2020 using relevant keywords. Patients of all ages with simultaneous COVID-19 and influenza were included. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA 14 software. Results: Eleven prevalence studies with total of 3,070 patients with COVID-19, and 79 patients with concurrent COVID-19 and influenza were selected for final evaluation. The prevalence of influenza infection was 0.8% in patients with confirmed COVID-19. The frequency of influenza virus co-infection among patients with COVID-19 was 4.5% in Asia and 0.4% in the America. Four prevalence studies reported the sex of patients, which were 30 men and 31 women. Prevalence of co-infection with influenza in men and women with COVID-19 was 5.3 and 9.1%, respectively. Eight case reports and 7 case series with a total of 123 patients with COVID-19 were selected, 29 of them (16 men, 13 women) with mean age of 48 years had concurrent infection with influenza viruses A/B. Fever, cough, and shortness of breath were the most common clinical manifestations. Two of 29 patients died (6.9%), and 17 out of 29 patients recovered (58.6%). Oseltamivir and hydroxychloroquine were the most widely used drugs used for 41.4, and 31% of patients, respectively. Conclusion: Although a low proportion of COVID-19 patients have influenza co-infection, however, the importance of such co-infection, especially in high-risk individuals and the elderly, cannot be ignored. We were unable to report the exact rate of simultaneous influenza in COVID-19 patients worldwide due to a lack of data from several countries. Obviously, more studies are needed to evaluate the exact effect of the COVID-19 and influenza co-infection in clinical outcomes.
| S-EPMC8267808 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Quantification of asymptomatic infections is fundamental for effective public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Discrepancies regarding the extent of asymptomaticity have arisen from inconsistent terminology as well as conflation of index and secondary cases which biases toward lower asymptomaticity. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and World Health Organization Global Research Database on COVID-19 between January 1, 2020 and April 2, 2021 to identify studies that reported silent infections at the time of testing, whether presymptomatic or asymptomatic. Index cases were removed to minimize representational bias that would result in overestimation of symptomaticity. By analyzing over 350 studies, we estimate that the percentage of infections that never developed clinical symptoms, and thus were truly asymptomatic, was 35.1% (95% CI: 30.7 to 39.9%). At the time of testing, 42.8% (95% prediction interval: 5.2 to 91.1%) of cases exhibited no symptoms, a group comprising both asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections. Asymptomaticity was significantly lower among the elderly, at 19.7% (95% CI: 12.7 to 29.4%) compared with children at 46.7% (95% CI: 32.0 to 62.0%). We also found that cases with comorbidities had significantly lower asymptomaticity compared to cases with no underlying medical conditions. Without proactive policies to detect asymptomatic infections, such as rapid contact tracing, prolonged efforts for pandemic control may be needed even in the presence of vaccination.
| S-EPMC8403749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe short- and long-term andrological effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have not been clarified. Our aim is to evaluate the available evidence regarding possible andrological consequences of COVID-19 either on seminal or hormonal parameters. The safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in terms of sperm quality was also investigated.MethodsAll prospective and retrospective observational studies reporting information on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) mRNA semen and male genitalia tract detection (n = 19), as well as those reporting data on semen analysis (n = 5) and hormonal parameters (n = 11) in infected/recovered patients without any arbitrary restriction were included.ResultsOut of 204 retrieved articles, 35 were considered, including 2092 patients and 1138 controls with a mean age of 44.1 ± 12.6 years, and mean follow-up 24.3 ± 18.9 days. SARS-CoV-2 mRNA can be localized in male genitalia tracts during the acute phase of the disease. COVID-19 can result in short-term impaired sperm and T production. Available data cannot clarify long-term andrological effects. Low T observed in the acute phase of the disease is associated with an increased risk of being admitted to the Intensive Care Unit or death. The two available studies showed that the use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines does not affect sperm quality.ConclusionsThe results of our analysis clearly suggest that each patient recovering from COVID-19 should be monitored to rule out sperm and T abnormalities. The specific contribution of reduced T levels during the acute phase of the infection needs to be better clarified.
| S-EPMC9080963 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding the level and characteristics of protection from past SARS-CoV-2 infection against subsequent re-infection, symptomatic COVID-19 disease, and severe disease is essential for predicting future potential disease burden, for designing policies that restrict travel or access to venues where there is a high risk of transmission, and for informing choices about when to receive vaccine doses. We aimed to systematically synthesise studies to estimate protection from past infection by variant, and where data allow, by time since infection.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified, reviewed, and extracted from the scientific literature retrospective and prospective cohort studies and test-negative case-control studies published from inception up to Sept 31, 2022, that estimated the reduction in risk of COVID-19 among individuals with a past SARS-CoV-2 infection in comparison to those without a previous infection. We meta-analysed the effectiveness of past infection by outcome (infection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease), variant, and time since infection. We ran a Bayesian meta-regression to estimate the pooled estimates of protection. Risk-of-bias assessment was evaluated using the National Institutes of Health quality-assessment tools. The systematic review was PRISMA compliant and was registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42022303850).FindingsWe identified a total of 65 studies from 19 different countries. Our meta-analyses showed that protection from past infection and any symptomatic disease was high for ancestral, alpha, beta, and delta variants, but was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant. Pooled effectiveness against re-infection by the omicron BA.1 variant was 45·3% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 17·3-76·1) and 44·0% (26·5-65·0) against omicron BA.1 symptomatic disease. Mean pooled effectiveness was greater than 78% against severe disease (hospitalisation and death) for all variants, including omicron BA.1. Protection from re-infection from ancestral, alpha, and delta variants declined over time but remained at 78·6% (49·8-93·6) at 40 weeks. Protection against re-infection by the omicron BA.1 variant declined more rapidly and was estimated at 36·1% (24·4-51·3) at 40 weeks. On the other hand, protection against severe disease remained high for all variants, with 90·2% (69·7-97·5) for ancestral, alpha, and delta variants, and 88·9% (84·7-90·9) for omicron BA.1 at 40 weeks.InterpretationProtection from past infection against re-infection from pre-omicron variants was very high and remained high even after 40 weeks. Protection was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant and declined more rapidly over time than protection against previous variants. Protection from severe disease was high for all variants. The immunity conferred by past infection should be weighed alongside protection from vaccination when assessing future disease burden from COVID-19, providing guidance on when individuals should be vaccinated, and designing policies that mandate vaccination for workers or restrict access, on the basis of immune status, to settings where the risk of transmission is high, such as travel and high-occupancy indoor settings.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, J Stanton, T Gillespie, and J and E Nordstrom.
| S-EPMC9998097 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Healthcare workers (HCWs) remain on the front line of the battle against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and are among the highest groups at risk of infection during this raging pandemic. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the incidence of postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection among vaccinated HCWs. We searched multiple databases from inception through August 2021 to identify studies that reported on the incidence of postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled proportions of COVID-19 infection in partially/fully vaccinated as well as unvaccinated individuals. Eighteen studies with 228 873 HCWs were included in the final analysis. The total number of partially vaccinated, fully vaccinated, and unvaccinated HCWs were 132 922, 155 673, and 17 505, respectively. Overall pooled proportion of COVID-19 infections among partially/fully vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs was 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-3.5). Among partially vaccinated, fully vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs, pooled proportion of COVID-19 infections was 2.3% (CI 1.2-4.4), 1.3% (95% CI 0.6-2.9), and 10.1% (95% CI 4.5-19.5), respectively. Our analysis shows the risk of COVID-19 infection in both partially and fully vaccinated HCWs remains exceedingly low when compared to unvaccinated individuals. There remains an urgent need for all frontline HCWs to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 infection.
| S-EPMC8661690 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has caused a global health emergency. The outbreak of this virus has raised a number of questions: What is SARS-CoV-2? How transmissible is SARS-CoV-2? How severely affected are patients infected with SARS-CoV-2? What are the risk factors for viral infection? What are the differences between this novel coronavirus and other coronaviruses? To answer these questions, we performed a comparative study of four pathogenic viruses that primarily attack the respiratory system and may cause death, namely, SARS-CoV-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV), and influenza A viruses (H1N1 and H3N2 strains). This comparative study provides a critical evaluation of the origin, genomic features, transmission, and pathogenicity of these viruses. Because the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 is ongoing, this evaluation may inform public health administrators and medical experts to aid in curbing the pandemic's progression.
| S-EPMC7516028 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe recovery of other pathogens in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported, either at the time of a SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis (co-infection) or subsequently (superinfection). However, data on the prevalence, microbiology, and outcomes of co-infection and superinfection are limited. The purpose of this study was to examine the occurrence of co-infections and superinfections and their outcomes among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.Patients and methodsWe searched literature databases for studies published from October 1, 2019, through February 8, 2021. We included studies that reported clinical features and outcomes of co-infection or superinfection of SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens in hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients. We followed PRISMA guidelines, and we registered the protocol with PROSPERO as: CRD42020189763.ResultsOf 6639 articles screened, 118 were included in the random effects meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of co-infection was 19% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14%-25%, I2 = 98%) and that of superinfection was 24% (95% CI: 19%-30%). Pooled prevalence of pathogen type stratified by co- or superinfection were: viral co-infections, 10% (95% CI: 6%-14%); viral superinfections, 4% (95% CI: 0%-10%); bacterial co-infections, 8% (95% CI: 5%-11%); bacterial superinfections, 20% (95% CI: 13%-28%); fungal co-infections, 4% (95% CI: 2%-7%); and fungal superinfections, 8% (95% CI: 4%-13%). Patients with a co-infection or superinfection had higher odds of dying than those who only had SARS-CoV-2 infection (odds ratio = 3.31, 95% CI: 1.82-5.99). Compared to those with co-infections, patients with superinfections had a higher prevalence of mechanical ventilation (45% [95% CI: 33%-58%] vs. 10% [95% CI: 5%-16%]), but patients with co-infections had a greater average length of hospital stay than those with superinfections (mean = 29.0 days, standard deviation [SD] = 6.7 vs. mean = 16 days, SD = 6.2, respectively).ConclusionsOur study showed that as many as 19% of patients with COVID-19 have co-infections and 24% have superinfections. The presence of either co-infection or superinfection was associated with poor outcomes, including increased mortality. Our findings support the need for diagnostic testing to identify and treat co-occurring respiratory infections among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
| S-EPMC8101968 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThere are some concerns regarding long-term complications of COVID-19 in children. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed evaluating the respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function, post-SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsA systematic search was performed in databases up to 30 March 2023. Studies evaluating respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function after COVID-19 infection in children were selected. The major outcomes were the frequency of respiratory symptoms and the mean of spirometry parameters. A pooled mean with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated.ResultsA total of 8 articles with 386 patients were included in meta-analysis. Dyspnea, cough, exercise intolerance, and fatigue were the most common symptoms. The meta-mean of forced expiratory volume (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) was 101.72%, 95% CI= (98.72, 104.73) and 101.31%, 95% CI= (95.44, 107.18) respectively. The meta-mean of FEV1/FVC and Forced expiratory flow at 25 and 75% was 96.16%, 95% CI= (90.47, 101.85) and 105.05%, 95% CI= (101.74, 108.36) respectively. The meta-mean of diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide was 105.30%, 95%CI= (88.12, 122.49). There was no significant difference in spirometry parameters before and after bronchodilator inhalation.ConclusionsDespite some clinical respiratory symptoms, meta-results showed no abnormality in pulmonary function in follow-up of children with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Disease severity and asthma background had not confounded this outcome.
| S-EPMC10832141 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to report the spectrum of placental pathology findings in pregnancies complicated by SARS-CoV-2 infection.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Web of Science databases were searched up to August 11, 2021.Study eligibility criteriaHistopathologic anomalies included maternal vascular malperfusion, fetal vascular malperfusion, acute inflammatory pathology, chronic inflammatory pathology, increased perivillous fibrin, and intervillous thrombosis. Moreover, subanalyses of symptomatic women only and high-risk pregnancies were performed.MethodsHistopathologic analysis of the placenta included gross examination, histopathology on hematoxylin and eosin, immunohistochemistry, fluorescence in situ hybridization, quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction on placental tissue, and transmission electron microscope. Random-effect meta-analyses were used to analyze the data.ResultsA total of 56 studies (1008 pregnancies) were included. Maternal vascular malperfusion was reported in 30.7% of placentas (95% confidence interval, 20.3-42.1), whereas fetal vascular malperfusion was observed in 27.08 % of cases (95% confidence interval, 19.2-35.6). Acute and chronic inflammatory pathologies were reported in 22.68% (95% confidence interval, 16.9-29.0) and 25.65% (95% confidence interval, 18.4-33.6) of cases, respectively. Increased perivillous fibrin was observed in 32.7% (95% confidence interval, 24.1-42.0) of placentas undergoing histopathologic analysis, whereas intervillous thrombosis was observed in 14.6% of cases (95% confidence interval, 9.7-20.2). Other placental findings, including a basal plate with attached myometrial fibers, microscopic accretism, villous edema, increased circulating nucleated red blood cells, or membranes with hemorrhage, were reported in 37.5% of cases (95% confidence interval, 28.0-47.5), whereas only 17.5% of cases (95% confidence interval, 10.9-25.2) did not present any abnormal histologic findings. The subanalyses according to maternal symptoms owing to SARS-CoV-2 infection or the presence of a high-risk pregnancy showed a similar distribution of the different histopathologic anomalies to that reported in the main analysis. Moreover, the risk of placental histopathologic anomalies was higher when considering only case-control studies comparing women with SARS-CoV-2 infection with healthy controls.ConclusionIn pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, a significant proportion of placentas showed histopathologic findings, suggesting placental hypoperfusion and inflammation. Future multicenter prospective blinded studies are needed to correlate these placental lesions with pregnancy outcomes.
| S-EPMC8379009 | biostudies-literature