Andrological effects of SARS-Cov-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
The 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.Methods
All 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.Results
Out 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.Conclusions
The 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.
SUBMITTER: Corona G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9080963 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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: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:BackgroundA rapidly increasing number of serological surveys for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 have been reported worldwide. We aimed to synthesise, combine, and assess this large corpus of data.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and five preprint servers for articles published in English between Dec 1, 2019, and Dec 22, 2020. Studies evaluating SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in humans after the first identified case in the area were included. Studies that only reported serological responses among patients with COVID-19, those using known infection status samples, or any animal experiments were all excluded. All data used for analysis were extracted from included papers. Study quality was assessed using a standardised scale. We estimated age-specific, sex-specific, and race-specific seroprevalence by WHO regions and subpopulations with different levels of exposures, and the ratio of serology-identified infections to virologically confirmed cases. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020198253.Findings16 506 studies were identified in the initial search, 2523 were assessed for eligibility after removal of duplicates and inappropriate titles and abstracts, and 404 serological studies (representing tests in 5 168 360 individuals) were included in the meta-analysis. In the 82 studies of higher quality, close contacts (18·0%, 95% CI 15·7-20·3) and high-risk health-care workers (17·1%, 9·9-24·4) had higher seroprevalence than did low-risk health-care workers (4·2%, 1·5-6·9) and the general population (8·0%, 6·8-9·2). The heterogeneity between included studies was high, with an overall I2 of 99·9% (p<0·0001). Seroprevalence varied greatly across WHO regions, with the lowest seroprevalence of general populations in the Western Pacific region (1·7%, 95% CI 0·0-5·0). The pooled infection-to-case ratio was similar between the region of the Americas (6·9, 95% CI 2·7-17·3) and the European region (8·4, 6·5-10·7), but higher in India (56·5, 28·5-112·0), the only country in the South-East Asia region with data.InterpretationAntibody-mediated herd immunity is far from being reached in most settings. Estimates of the ratio of serologically detected infections per virologically confirmed cases across WHO regions can help provide insights into the true proportion of the population infected from routine confirmation data.FundingNational Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars, Key Emergency Project of Shanghai Science and Technology Committee, Program of Shanghai Academic/Technology Research Leader, National Science and Technology Major project of China, the US National Institutes of Health.TranslationFor the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
| S-EPMC8049592 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Treatment options for severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) are limited with no clarity on efficacy and safety profiles. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on patients ≥18 years reporting data on therapeutic interventions in SARS-CoV-2. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes were rates of mechanical ventilation, viral clearance, adverse events, discharge, and progression to severe disease. Pooled rates and odds ratios (OR) were calculated. Twenty-nine studies with 5207 patients were included. Pooled all-cause mortality in intervention arm was 12.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.1%-17.4%). Mortality was significantly higher for studies using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for intervention (OR: 1.36; 95% CI: 0.97-1.89). Adverse events were also higher in HCQ subgroup (OR: 3.88; 95% CI: 1.60-9.45). There was no difference in other secondary outcomes. There is a need for well-designed randomized clinical trials for further investigation of every therapeutic intervention for further insight into different therapeutic options.
| S-EPMC7404948 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We conducted this meta-analysis to determine the proportion of co-infection with influenza viruses in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients and to investigate the severity of COVID-19 in these patients. We included studies with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by qRT-PCR and influenza virus infection (A and/or B) by nucleic acid tests. The proportion of co-infection was compared between children and adults, and between critically ill or deceased patients compared to overall patients. Fifty-four articles were included. The overall proportion of co-infection was 0.7%, 95%CI = [0.4 - 1.3]. Most influenza co-infections were due to the influenza A virus (74.4%). The proportion of co-infection with influenza viruses among children (3.2%, 95% CI = [0.9 - 10.9]) was significantly higher than that in adult patients (0.3%, 95% CI = [0.1 - 1.2]), p-value <0.01. The proportion of co-infection with influenza viruses among critically ill patients tended to be higher than that in overall patients (2.2%, 95% CI = [0.3 - 22.4] versus 0.6%, 95% CI = [0.3 - 1.2], respectively, p-value = 0.22). Screening for pathogens in co-infection, particularly influenza viruses in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, is necessary. This warrants close surveillance and investigation of the co-incidences and interactions of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses, which is facilitated by the expansion of syndromic diagnosis approaches through the use of multiplex PCR assays.
| S-EPMC8349735 | biostudies-literature
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].
| S-EPMC9218576 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We performed a meta-analysis to determine safety and efficacy of corticosteroids in SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV infections. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, WanFang Chinese database, and ZhiWang Chinese database using Boolean operators and search terms covering SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, OR MERS-CoV AND corticosteroids to find appropriate studies. Review Manager 5.3 was used to analyze results of meta-analysis. Observational studies were analyzed for quality using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale and randomized clinical trials, using the Jadad scale. Subjects were divided into those with severe-only and other (severe and not severe) cohorts based on published criteria. Efficacy endpoints studied included mortality, hospitalization duration, rates of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, use of mechanical ventilation, and a composite endpoint (death, ICU admission, or mechanical ventilation). We included 11 reports including 10 cohort studies and 1 randomized clinical trial involving 5249 subjects (2003-2020). Two discussed the association of corticosteroids and virus clearing and 10 explored how corticosteroids impacted mortality, hospitalization duration, use of mechanical ventilation, and a composite endpoint. Corticosteroid use was associated with delayed virus clearing with a mean difference (MD)?=?3.78 days (95% confidence Interval [CI]?=?1.16, 6.41 days; I2?=?0%). There was no significant reduction in deaths with relative Risk Ratio (RR)?=?1.07 (90% CI?=?0.81; 1.42; I2?=?80%). Hospitalization duration was prolonged and use of mechanical ventilation increased. In conclusion, corticosteroid use in subjects with SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV infections delayed virus clearing and did not convincingly improve survival, reduce hospitalization duration or ICU admission rate and/or use of mechanical ventilation. There were several adverse effects. Because of a preponderance of observational studies in the dataset and selection and publication biases our conclusions, especially regarding SARS-CoV-2, need confirmation in a randomized clinical trial. In the interim we suggest caution using corticosteroids in persons with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7199650 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesCOVID-19 has been arguably the most important public health concern worldwide in 2020, and efforts are now escalating to suppress or eliminate its spread. In this study we undertook a meta-analysis to estimate the global and regional seroprevalence rates in humans of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and to assess whether seroprevalence is associated with geographical, climatic and/or sociodemographic factors.MethodsWe systematically reviewed PubMed, Scopus, Embase, medRxiv and bioRxiv databases for preprints or peer-reviewed articles (up to 14 August 2020). Study eligibility criteria were population-based studies describing the prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 (IgG and/or IgM) serum antibodies. Participants were people from different socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds (from the general population), whose prior COVID-19 status was unknown and who were tested for the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 serum antibodies. We used a random-effects model to estimate pooled seroprevalence, and then extrapolated the findings to the global population (for 2020). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses explored potential sources of heterogeneity in the data, and relationships between seroprevalence and sociodemographic, geographical and/or climatic factors.ResultsIn total, 47 studies involving 399 265 people from 23 countries met the inclusion criteria. Heterogeneity (I2 = 99.4%, p < 0.001) was seen among studies; SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in the general population varied from 0.37% to 22.1%, with a pooled estimate of 3.38% (95%CI 3.05-3.72%; 15 879/399 265). On a regional level, seroprevalence varied from 1.45% (0.95-1.94%, South America) to 5.27% (3.97-6.57%, Northern Europe), although some variation appeared to relate to the serological assay used. The findings suggested an association of seroprevalence with income levels, human development indices, geographic latitudes and/or climate. Extrapolating to the 2020 world population, we estimated that 263.5 million individuals had been exposed or infected at the time of this study.ConclusionsThis study showed that SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence varied markedly among geographic regions, as might be expected early in a pandemic. Longitudinal surveys to continually monitor seroprevalence around the globe will be critical to support prevention and control efforts, and might indicate levels of endemic stability or instability in particular countries and regions.
| S-EPMC7584920 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Asymptomatic cases of SARS-CoV-2 can be unknown carriers magnifying the transmission of COVID-19. This study appraised the frequency of asymptomatic individuals and estimated occurrence by age group and gender by reviewing the existing published data on asymptomatic people with COVID-19. Three electronic databases, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science (WoS), were used to search the literature following the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). The study population for this review included asymptomatic individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 reported in original articles published up to 30 April 2020. A random effects model was applied to analyze pooled data on the prevalence of asymptomatic cases among all COVID-19 patients and also by age and gender. From the meta-analysis of 16 studies, comprising 2,788 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients, the pooled prevalence according to the random effect size of asymptomatic cases was 48.2% (95% CI, 30-67%). Of the asymptomatic cases, 55.5% (95% CI, 43.6-66.8%) were female and 49.6% (95% CI, 20.5-79.1%) were children. Children and females were more likely to present as asymptomatic COVID-19 cases and could act as unknown carriers of SARS-CoV-2. Symptom-based screening might fail to identify all SARS-CoV-2 infections escalating the threat of global spread and impeding containment. Therefore, a mass surveillance system to track asymptomatic cases is critical, with special attention to females and children.
| S-EPMC7855302 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHydroxychloroquine (HCQ)/Chloroquine (CQ) has been evaluated for treatment and prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection in various studies with conflicting results. We performed a systematic review to synthesize the currently available evidence over the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ therapy alone against SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsWe searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane central for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies published until October 15, 2020 and assessing the efficacy of HCQ alone against SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included studies evaluating HCQ/CQ alone as intervention and placebo/standard care as a control group. Retrospective studies and studies using other drugs (namely azithromycin, corticosteroids, immunomodulators, etc.) we excluded. Thirteen RCTs and three prospective cohort studies were included in this review. We pooled data using a random-effect model.ResultsPooled data from 12 studies (9917 participants) showed that HCQs increase mortality as compared to placebo/standard of care (RR 1.10; 95% CI:1.00-1.20). Hydroxychloroquine did not reduce the need for hospitalization in out-patients (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.31-1.02). HCQ group has a significantly higher rate of any adverse event (RR 2.68; 95% CI 1.55-4.64), as compared to the control group. Also, using HCQ for prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection did not reduce the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.58-1.88).ConclusionsHCQ therapy for COVID-19 is associated with an increase in mortality and other adverse events. The negative effects are more pronounced in hospitalized patients. Therefore, with the available evidence, HCQ should not be used in prophylaxis or treatment of patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7899036 | biostudies-literature