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: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: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: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
Project description:Little is known about the long-term consequences of asymptomatic infection caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We aimed to review the data available to explore the long-term consequences of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in the real world. We searched observational cohort studies that described the long-term health effects of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. Random-effects inverse-variance models were used to evaluate the pooled prevalence (PP) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) of long-term symptoms. Random effects were used to estimate the pooled odds ratios (OR) and its 95%CI of different long-term symptoms between symptomatic and asymptomatic infections. Five studies involving a total of 1643 cases, including 597 cases of asymptomatic and 1043 cases of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection were included in this meta-analysis. The PPs of long-term consequences after asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections were 17.13% (95%CI, 7.55-26.71%) for at least one symptom, 15.09% (95%CI, 5.46-24.73%) for loss of taste, 14.14% (95%CI, -1.32-29.61%) for loss of smell, and 9.33% (95%CI, 3.07-15.60) for fatigue. Compared with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, asymptomatic infection was associated with a significantly lower risk of developing COVID-19-related sequelae (p < 0.05), with 80% lower risk of developing at least one symptom (OR = 0.20, 95%CI, 0.09-0.45), 81% lower risk of fatigue (OR = 0.19, 95%CI, 0.08-0.49), 90% lower risk of loss of taste/smell (OR = 0.10, 95%CI, 0.02-0.58). Our results suggested that there were long-term effects of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, such as loss of taste or smell, fatigue, cough and so on. However, the risk of developing long-term symptoms in asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infected persons was significantly lower than those in symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection cases.
| S-EPMC9863678 | 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: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