Viral Coinfection among COVID-19 Patient Groups: An Update Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Coinfections have a potential role in increased morbidity and mortality rates during pandemics. Our investigation is aimed at evaluating the viral coinfection prevalence in COVID-19 patients.Methods
We systematically searched scientific databases, including Medline, Scopus, WOS, and Embase, from December 1, 2019, to December 30, 2020. Preprint servers such as medRxiv were also scanned to find other related preprint papers. All types of studies evaluating the viral coinfection prevalence in COVID-19 patients were considered. We applied the random effects model to pool all of the related studies.Results
Thirty-three studies including 10484 patients were identified. The viral coinfection estimated pooled prevalence was 12.58%; 95% CI: 7.31 to 18.96). Blood viruses (pooled prevalence: 12.48%; 95% CI: 8.57 to 16.93) had the most frequent viral coinfection, and respiratory viruses (pooled prevalence: 4.32%; 95% CI: 2.78 to 6.15) had less frequent viral coinfection. The herpesvirus pooled prevalence was 11.71% (95% CI: 3.02 to 24.80). Also, the maximum and minimum of viral coinfection pooled prevalence were in AMRO and EMRO with 15.63% (95% CI: 3.78 to 33.31) and 7.05% (95% CI: 3.84 to 11.07), respectively.Conclusion
The lowest rate of coinfection belonged to respiratory viruses. Blood-borne viruses had the highest coinfection rate. Our results provide important data about the prevalence of blood-borne viruses among COVID-19 patients which can be critical when it comes to their treatment procedure.
SUBMITTER: Malekifar P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8416381 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 raised the attention towards bacterial coinfection and its role in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease. This study aims to systematically review and identify the pooled prevalence of bacterial coinfection in the related articles. A comprehensive search was conducted in international databases, including MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase, to identify the articles on the prevalence of bacterial coinfections in COIVD-19 patients from 1 December 2019 until 30 December 2020. All observational epidemiological studies that evaluated the prevalence of bacterial coinfections in patients with COVID-19 were included without any restriction. Forty-two studies including a total sample size of 54,695 were included in the analysis. The pooled estimate for the prevalence of bacterial coinfections was 20.97% (95% CI: 15.95-26.46), and the pooled prevalence of bacterial coinfections was 5.20% (95% CI: 2.39-8.91) for respiratory subtype and 4.79% (95% CI: 0.11-14.61) for the gastrointestinal subtype. The pooled prevalence for Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office and South-East Asia Regional Office was 100% (95% CI: 82.35-100.00) and 2.61% (95% CI: 1.74-3.62). This rate of coinfection poses a great danger towards patients, especially those in critical condition. Although there are multiple complications and adverse effects related to extensive use of antibiotics to treat patients with COVID-19, it seems there is no other option except applying them, and it needs to be done carefully.
| S-EPMC8245302 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background There were a few studies on bacterial coinfection in hospitalized COVID-19 patients worldwide. This systematic review aimed to provide the pooled prevalence of bacterial coinfection from published studies from 2020 to 2022. Methods Three databases were used to search the studies, and 49 studies from 2,451 identified studies involving 212,605 COVID-19 patients were included in this review. Results The random-effects inverse-variance model determined that the pooled prevalence of bacterial coinfection in hospitalized COVID-19 patients was 26.84% (95% CI [23.85–29.83]). The pooled prevalence of isolated bacteria for Acinetobacter baumannii was 23.25% (95% CI [19.27–27.24]), Escherichia coli was 10.51% (95% CI [8.90–12.12]), Klebsiella pneumoniae was 15.24% (95% CI [7.84–22.64]), Pseudomonas aeruginosa was 11.09% (95% CI [8.92–13.27]) and Staphylococcus aureus (11.59% (95% CI [9.71–13.46])). Meanwhile, the pooled prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria for extended-spectrum beta-lactamases producing Enterobacteriaceae was 15.24% (95% CI [7.84–22.64]) followed by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (14.55% (95% CI [9.59–19.52%])), carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (6.95% (95% CI [2.61–11.29])), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (5.05% (95% CI [3.49–6.60])), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (4.95% (95% CI [3.10–6.79])), and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (1.26% (95% CI [0.46–2.05])). Conclusion All the prevalences were considered as low. However, effective management and prevention of the infection should be considered since these coinfections have a bad impact on the morbidity and mortality of patients.
| S-EPMC10148641 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith advent of molecular diagnostic technologies, studies have reported detection of two or more respiratory viruses in about 30% of children with respiratory infections. However, prognostic role of coinfection remains unclear.ObjectiveEvaluate relation between respiratory viral confection and illness severity in children.Study designMEDLINE (through PUBMED), EMBASE, EBSCO, LILACS databases were searched up to March 2015 by two independent reviewers. Studies assessing severity of viral coinfection in patients aged less than 18 years were included. Standardized forms were used for data extraction of population, study design, clinical syndromes, virus combinations compared and severity outcomes. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed through EPHPP and GRADE. Subgroup analysis was performed according to age and viral combinations.ResultsOf 5218 records screened, 43 were included in analysis. Viral coinfection did not influence risks of all outcomes assessed: length of stay (mean difference in days in coinfection, -0.10 [95% confidence interval: -0.51 to 0.31]), length of supplemental oxygen (-0.42 [-1.05 to 0.20]), need of hospitalization (odds ratio of coinfection, 0.96 [95% confidence interval: 0.61-1.51]), supplemental oxygen (0.94 [0.66 to 1.34]), need of intensive care (0.99 [0.64 to 1.54]), mechanical ventilation (0.81 [0.33 to 2.01]) and death (2.22 [0.83 to 5.95]). Sub-analyses according to age and viral combinations have not shown influence of these factors in outcomes.ConclusionsRespiratory viral coinfection did not increase severity in all outcomes assessed. Further studies are necessary to confirm this finding, especially regarding role of specific viral interactions.
| S-EPMC7185664 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo provide information about pathogens' coinfection prevalence with SARS-CoV-2 could be a real help to save patients' lives. This study aims to evaluate the pathogens' coinfection prevalence among COVID-19 patients.MethodIn order to find all of the relevant articles, we used systematic search approach. Research-based databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus, without language restrictions, were searched to identify the relevant bacterial, fungal, and viral coinfections among COVID-19 cases from December 1, 2019, to August 23, 2021. In order to dig deeper, other scientific repositories such as Medrxiv were probed.ResultsA total of 13,023 studies were found through systematic search. After thorough analysis, only 64 studies with 61,547 patients were included in the study. The most common causative agents of coinfection among COVID-19 patients were bacteria (pooled prevalence: 20.97%; 95% CI: 15.95-26.46; I2 : 99.9%) and less frequent were virus coinfections (pooled prevalence: 12.58%; 95% CI: 7.31-18.96; I2 : 98.7%). The pooled prevalence of fungal coinfections was also 12.60% (95% CI: 7.84-17.36; I2 : 98.3%). Meta-regression analysis showed that the age sample size and WHO geographic region did not influenced heterogeneity.ConclusionWe identified a high prevalence of pathogenic microorganism coinfection among COVID-19 patients. Because of this rate of coinfection empirical use of antibacterial, antifungal, and antiviral treatment are advisable specifically at the early stage of COVID-19 infection. We also suggest running simultaneously diagnostic tests to identify other microbiological agents' coinfection with SARS-CoV-2.
| S-EPMC8761407 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the possible difference in the SARS-CoV-2 viral load between asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19 patients. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed in abstracting data and assessing validity. We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar for all investigations in the English language, reporting data on the threshold cycle (Ct) from real-time RT-PCR assays for the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), envelope (E) and nucleocapsid (N) SARS-CoV-2 genes in asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19 patients. Results: Overall, 703 COVID-19 patients (553 symptomatic and 150 asymptomatic) were analyzed. Five investigations reported the mean age of patients, evidencing that asymptomatic patients were younger than symptomatic patients (34.0 vs. 40.3 years, respectively). Pooled data regarding the levels of expression of the RdRp gene revealed no significant difference between symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects. Similarly, no differences were observed comparing the mean Ct values for the E and N genes. Based on real-time RT-PCR data, no differences exist in the viral load between symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19 subjects considering Ct values for RdRp, E and N genes' expression. Asymptomatic subjects may represent a reservoir of the infection and significantly contribute to the maintenance of the pandemic.
| S-EPMC8293148 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesRespiratory co-infections have the potential to affect the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 patients. This meta-analysis was performed to analyze the prevalence of respiratory pathogens (viruses and atypical bacteria) in COVID-19 patients.MethodsThis review was consistent with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Searched databases included: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and grey literature. Studies with a series of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients with additional respiratory pathogen testing were included. Independently, 2 authors extracted data and assessed quality of evidence across all studies using Cochrane's Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology and within each study using the Newcastle Ottawa scale. Data extraction and quality assessment disagreements were settled by a third author. Pooled prevalence of co-infections was calculated using a random-effects model with univariate meta-regression performed to assess the effect of study subsets on heterogeneity. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plot inspection, Begg's correlation, and Egger's test.ResultsEighteen retrospective cohorts and 1 prospective study were included. Pooling of data (1880 subjects) showed an 11.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.9-17.4, I 2 = 0.92) pooled prevalence of respiratory co-pathogens. Studies with 100% co-pathogen testing (1210 subjects) found a pooled prevalence of 16.8% (95% CI = 8.1-27.9, I 2 = 0.95) and studies using serum antibody tests (488 subjects) found a pooled prevalence of 26.8% (95%, CI = 7.9-51.9, I 2 = 0.97). Meta-regression found no moderators affecting heterogeneity.ConclusionCo-infection with respiratory pathogens is a common and potentially important occurrence in patients with COVID-19. Knowledge of the prevalence and type of co-infections may have diagnostic and management implications.
| S-EPMC7323310 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEvidence around prevalence of bacterial coinfection and pattern of antibiotic use in COVID-19 is controversial although high prevalence rates of bacterial coinfection have been reported in previous similar global viral respiratory pandemics. Early data on the prevalence of antibiotic prescribing in COVID-19 indicates conflicting low and high prevalence of antibiotic prescribing which challenges antimicrobial stewardship programmes and increases risk of antimicrobial resistance (AMR).AimTo determine current prevalence of bacterial coinfection and antibiotic prescribing in COVID-19 patients.Data sourceOVID MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE, Cochrane and MedRxiv between January 2020 and June 2021.Study eligibilityEnglish language studies of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients which reported (a) prevalence of bacterial coinfection and/or (b) prevalence of antibiotic prescribing with no restrictions to study designs or healthcare setting.ParticipantsAdults (aged ≥ 18 years) with RT-PCR confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, regardless of study setting.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis. Proportion (prevalence) data was pooled using random effects meta-analysis approach; and stratified based on region and study design.ResultsA total of 1058 studies were screened, of which 22, hospital-based studies were eligible, compromising 76,176 of COVID-19 patients. Pooled estimates for the prevalence of bacterial co-infection and antibiotic use were 5.62% (95% CI 2.26-10.31) and 61.77% (CI 50.95-70.90), respectively. Sub-group analysis by region demonstrated that bacterial co-infection was more prevalent in North American studies (7.89%, 95% CI 3.30-14.18).ConclusionPrevalence of bacterial coinfection in COVID-19 is low, yet prevalence of antibiotic prescribing is high, indicating the need for targeted COVID-19 antimicrobial stewardship initiatives to reduce the global threat of AMR.
| S-EPMC9342726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesCytokine release syndrome with elevated interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels is associated with multiorgan damage and death in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective was to update the data in a living systematic review of the literature concerning the efficacy and toxicity of the IL-6 receptor antagonist tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients.MethodsData sources were Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Scopus up, preprint servers and Google from 8th October 2020 till 24th February 2021. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies at low or moderate risk of bias. The participants were hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and intervention was tocilizumab versus placebo or standard of care. We pooled crude risk ratios (RRs) of RCTs with a random effects model and evaluated inconsistency between studies with I2. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.ResultsOf 1600 citations, eight RCTs and 28 cohorts were eligible. The eight RCTs had low risk of bias, and with 6311 patients they examined the effect of tocilizumab on short-term mortality; pooled RR was 0.91 (95%CI 0.78-1.07, I2 25%). Only the REMAP-CAP and RECOVERY trials, with the majority of their patients on concomitant corticosteroids, showed lower 30-day mortality with tocilizumab use: RR 0.74 (95%CI 0.59-0.93) and 0.89 (95%CI 0.81-0.97), respectively. Seven RCTs, with 5391 patients, examined the effect of tocilizumab on risk of mechanical ventilation; pooled RR was 0.84 (95%CI 0.76-0.93), I2 0%, with a corresponding number needed to treat of 20 (95%CI 14.3-33.3). Eight RCTs, with 5340 patients, examined the effect of tocilizumab on a composite of poor outcome; pooled RR was 0.82 (95%CI 0.76-0.90, I2 3%). Data from the RCTs showed a lower risk of infections and no higher risk of serious adverse events with tocilizumab: pooled RR 0.67 (95%CI 0.45-0.99, eight RCTs) and 0.85 (95%CI 0.63-1.16, seven RCTs), respectively. Among 28 cohorts with 15 484 patients, the pooled adjusted RR for mortality was 0.53 (95%CI 0.43-0.67, I2 76%).ConclusionsCumulative high-certainty evidence shows that tocilizumab reduces the risk of mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that tocilizumab reduces the risk of poor outcome and the risk of secondary infections in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This review will continuously evaluate the role of tocilizumab in COVID-19 treatment.
| S-EPMC8076756 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Since the rapid onset of the COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the world in 2019, extensive studies have been conducted to unveil the behavior and emission pattern of the virus in order to determine the best ways to diagnosis of virus and thereof formulate effective drugs or vaccines to combat the disease. The emergence of novel diagnostic and therapeutic techniques considering the multiplicity of reports from one side and contradictions in assessments from the other side necessitates instantaneous updates on the progress of clinical investigations. There is also growing public anxiety from time to time mutation of COVID-19, as reflected in considerable mortality and transmission, respectively, from delta and Omicron variants. We comprehensively review and summarize different aspects of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of COVID-19. First, biological characteristics of COVID-19 were explained from diagnosis standpoint. Thereafter, the preclinical animal models of COVID-19 were discussed to frame the symptoms and clinical effects of COVID-19 from patient to patient with treatment strategies and in-silico/computational biology. Finally, the opportunities and challenges of nanoscience/nanotechnology in identification, diagnosis, and treatment of COVID-19 were discussed. This review covers almost all SARS-CoV-2-related topics extensively to deepen the understanding of the latest achievements (last updated on January 11, 2022).
| S-EPMC8906461 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimCurrently there is not an effective antiviral treatment for COVID-19, but a large number of drugs have been evaluated since the beginning of the pandemic, and many of them have been used for the treatment of COVID-19 despite the preliminary or conflicting results of the clinical trials. We aimed to review and summarize all of the current knowledge on the antivirals for COVID-19ResultsThere are 2 main drug groups for SARS-CoV-2: agents that target proteins or RNA of the virus or interfere with proteins or biological processes in the host that support the virus. The main drug groups include inhibitors of viral entry into the human cell (convalescent plasma, monoclonal antibodies, nanobodies, mini proteins, human soluble ACE-2, camostat, dutasteride, proxalutamide, bromhexin, hydroxychloroquine, umifenovir nitazoxanid, niclosamide, lactoferrin), inhibitors of viral proteases (lopinavir/ritonavir, PF-07321332, PF-07304814, GC376), inhibitors of viral RNA (remdesivir, favipiravir, molnupiravir, AT-527, merimepodib, PTC299), inhibitors of host proteins supporting virus (plitidepsin, fluvoxamine, ivermectin), and agents supporting host natural immunity
| S-EPMC8771049 | biostudies-literature