Dataset Information

A Global Mutational Profile of SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 368,316 COVID-19 Patients.

ABSTRACT: Since its first detection in December 2019, more than 232 million cases of COVID-19, including 4.7 million deaths, have been reported by the WHO. The SARS-CoV-2 viral genomes have evolved rapidly worldwide, causing the emergence of new variants. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to provide a global mutational profile of SARS-CoV-2 from December 2019 to October 2020. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA), and a study protocol was lodged with PROSPERO. Data from 62 eligible studies involving 368,316 SARS-CoV-2 genomes were analyzed. The mutational data analyzed showed most studies detected mutations in the Spike protein (n = 50), Nucleocapsid phosphoprotein (n = 34), ORF1ab gene (n = 29), 5'-UTR (n = 28) and ORF3a (n = 25). Under the random-effects model, pooled prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 variants was estimated at 95.1% (95% CI; 93.3-96.4%; I² = 98.952%; p = 0.000) while subgroup meta-analysis by country showed majority of the studies were conducted 'Worldwide' (n = 10), followed by 'Multiple countries' (n = 6) and the USA (n = 5). The estimated prevalence indicated a need to continuously monitor the prevalence of new mutations due to their potential influence on disease severity, transmissibility and vaccine effectiveness.

SUBMITTER: Yusof W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8620851 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany studies report the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies. We aimed to synthesize seroprevalence data to better estimate the level and distribution of SARS-CoV-2 infection, identify high-risk groups, and inform public health decision making.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched publication databases, preprint servers, and grey literature sources for seroepidemiological study reports, from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020. We included studies that reported a sample size, study date, location, and seroprevalence estimate. We corrected estimates for imperfect test accuracy with Bayesian measurement error models, conducted meta-analysis to identify demographic differences in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, and meta-regression to identify study-level factors associated with seroprevalence. We compared region-specific seroprevalence data to confirmed cumulative incidence. PROSPERO: CRD42020183634.ResultsWe identified 968 seroprevalence studies including 9.3 million participants in 74 countries. There were 472 studies (49%) at low or moderate risk of bias. Seroprevalence was low in the general population (median 4.5%, IQR 2.4-8.4%); however, it varied widely in specific populations from low (0.6% perinatal) to high (59% persons in assisted living and long-term care facilities). Median seroprevalence also varied by Global Burden of Disease region, from 0.6% in Southeast Asia, East Asia and Oceania to 19.5% in Sub-Saharan Africa (p<0.001). National studies had lower seroprevalence estimates than regional and local studies (p<0.001). Compared to Caucasian persons, Black persons (prevalence ratio [RR] 3.37, 95% CI 2.64-4.29), Asian persons (RR 2.47, 95% CI 1.96-3.11), Indigenous persons (RR 5.47, 95% CI 1.01-32.6), and multi-racial persons (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.60-2.24) were more likely to be seropositive. Seroprevalence was higher among people ages 18-64 compared to 65 and over (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.11-1.45). Health care workers in contact with infected persons had a 2.10 times (95% CI 1.28-3.44) higher risk compared to health care workers without known contact. There was no difference in seroprevalence between sex groups. Seroprevalence estimates from national studies were a median 18.1 times (IQR 5.9-38.7) higher than the corresponding SARS-CoV-2 cumulative incidence, but there was large variation between Global Burden of Disease regions from 6.7 in South Asia to 602.5 in Sub-Saharan Africa. Notable methodological limitations of serosurveys included absent reporting of test information, no statistical correction for demographics or test sensitivity and specificity, use of non-probability sampling and use of non-representative sample frames.DiscussionMost of the population remains susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Public health measures must be improved to protect disproportionately affected groups, including racial and ethnic minorities, until vaccine-derived herd immunity is achieved. Improvements in serosurvey design and reporting are needed for ongoing monitoring of infection prevalence and the pandemic response.

Project description:ImportanceAsymptomatic infections are potential sources of transmission for COVID-19.ObjectiveTo evaluate the percentage of asymptomatic infections among individuals undergoing testing (tested population) and those with confirmed COVID-19 (confirmed population).Data sourcesPubMed, EMBASE, and ScienceDirect were searched on February 4, 2021.Study selectionCross-sectional studies, cohort studies, case series studies, and case series on transmission reporting the number of asymptomatic infections among the tested and confirmed COVID-19 populations that were published in Chinese or English were included.Data extraction and synthesisThis meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled percentage and its 95% CI. Three researchers performed the data extraction independently.Main outcomes and measuresThe percentage of asymptomatic infections among the tested and confirmed populations.ResultsNinety-five unique eligible studies were included, covering 29 776 306 individuals undergoing testing. The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the tested population was 0.25% (95% CI, 0.23%-0.27%), which was higher in nursing home residents or staff (4.52% [95% CI, 4.15%-4.89%]), air or cruise travelers (2.02% [95% CI, 1.66%-2.38%]), and pregnant women (2.34% [95% CI, 1.89%-2.78%]). The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the confirmed population was 40.50% (95% CI, 33.50%-47.50%), which was higher in pregnant women (54.11% [95% CI, 39.16%-69.05%]), air or cruise travelers (52.91% [95% CI, 36.08%-69.73%]), and nursing home residents or staff (47.53% [95% CI, 36.36%-58.70%]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this meta-analysis of the percentage of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections among populations tested for and with confirmed COVID-19, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections was 0.25% among the tested population and 40.50% among the confirmed population. The high percentage of asymptomatic infections highlights the potential transmission risk of asymptomatic infections in communities.

Dataset Information

A Global Mutational Profile of SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 368,316 COVID-19 Patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure