Assessment of olfactory and gustatory functions in COVID-19 patients

Background/aimThis study aims to evaluate of olfactory and gustatory functions of COVID-19 patients and possible risk factors for olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions. Materials and methodsThe cross-sectional study included adult patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 in Gazi University Hospital between April 2020 and June 2020. Volunteered patients participated in a survey in which olfactory and gustatory functions and various clinical information were questioned. Sinonasal Outcome Test-22 was also administrated to all patients.ResultsA hundred and seventy-one patients participated in this study. Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions rates were 10.5% (n: 18) and 10.5% (n: 18), respectively. Patients without any symptom other than smell and taste dysfunctions were clustered as group 1 and patients who are clinically symptomatic were clustered as group 2. Olfactory dysfunction occurred in 8% of group 1 and 17.4% of group 2 (p = 0.072). Gustatory dysfunction rate of smokers was 19.7% and significantly higher than gustatory dysfunction rate of nonsmokers (5.5%) (p = 0.007). Twenty-seven-point-eight percent of the patients with olfactory dysfunction (n = 5) were male and 72.2% (n: 13) were female. Sex did not show significant effect on rate of olfactory dysfunction. Twenty-five patients participated in psychophysical olfactory function test. No participant reported olfactory dysfunction at the time of test. Of the participants, 64% (n: 16) were normosmic and 36% (n: 9) were hyposmic according to Sniffin’ Stick test. ConclusionOlfactory and gustatory dysfunctions are more common in patients who are clinically symptomatic than those diagnosed during contact tracing. Objective tests may show that frequency of olfactory dysfunction is greater than frequency of self-reported olfactory dysfunction.     

Younger adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 exhibited more prevalent olfactory dysfunction in Taiwan

BackgroundCoronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is rapidly transmitted from person to person, causing global pandemic since December 2019. Instantly detecting COVID-19 is crucial for epidemic prevention. In this study, olfactory dysfunction is a significant symptom in mild to moderate COVID-19 patients but relatively rare in other respiratory viral infections. The Taiwan smell identification test (TWSIT) is a speedy and inexpensive option for accurately distinguishing anosmia that also quantifies the degree of anosmia. Using TWSIT in the outpatient clinic for early identifying the patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 can be promising.MethodsNineteen patients confirmed COVID-19 in central Taiwan were collected and divided into two groups: olfactory dysfunction and non-olfactory dysfunction. Demographic characteristics, laboratory findings, and the results of the olfactory test were compared between these two groups.FindingsThirteen (68.4%) of the 19 patients had olfactory dysfunction. The patients with olfactory dysfunction were younger than those without this symptom. The statistical difference in age distribution was significant between these two groups (IQR: 25.5–35.5 vs. IQR: 32.5–60.3; p-value: 0.012). There was no significant difference in gender, smoking history, comorbidities, travel history, respiratory tract infection symptoms, and laboratory findings between these two groups.ConclusionThis study demonstrated that young adults were prone to develop olfactory dysfunctions. In the flu season, olfactory dysfunction is considered a specific screening criterion for early detecting COVID-19 in the community. TWSIT can serve as a decent test for quantifying and qualifying olfactory dysfunction.     

Clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis of global data

ObjectivesThe impact of rheumatic diseases on COVID-19 infection remains poorly investigated. Here we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic diseases.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus and preprint database up to 29th August 2020, for publications with confirmed COVID-19 infection in patients with rheumatic diseases. The primary outcomes were the rates of hospitalization, oxygen support, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death. A meta-analysis of effect sizes using the random-effects models was performed, and meta-regression analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity. The data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry (the COVID-19 GRA) was used as a reference.ResultsA total of 31 articles involving 1138 patients were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The publications were from Europe, Asia and North America, but none from other continents. The overall rates of hospitalization, oxygen support, ICU admission and fatality among COVID-19 infected patients with rheumatic diseases were 0.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48–0.67), 0.33 (95% CI 0.21–0.47), 0.09 (95% CI 0.05–0.15) and 0.07 (95% CI 0.03–0.11), respectively. The rate of oxygen support in Europe (0.48, 95% CI 0.4–0.57) was higher than that in other continents. Among all hospitalized patients, the rates of oxygen support, ICU admission and fatality were 0.61 (95% CI 0.48–0.73), 0.13 (95% CI 0.07–0.21) and 0.13 (95% CI 0.09–0.18), respectively. The fatality rate was highest in Europe (0.19, 95% CI 0.15–0.24). The fatality rate was higher both in this meta-analysis and the COVID-19 GRA (7.0% and 6.7%, respectively) than that (3.4%) in WHO database, although the age, gender and comorbidity were not matched.ConclusionPatients with rheumatic diseases remain vulnerable with substantial rates of severe outcomes and a geographic variation. More studies were urgently needed to elucidate the risk factors of severe outcomes in this population.     

Antibiotic prescribing in patients with COVID-19: rapid review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThe proportion of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 that are prescribed antibiotics is uncertain, and may contribute to patient harm and global antibiotic resistance.ObjectiveThe aim was to estimate the prevalence and associated factors of antibiotic prescribing in patients with COVID-19.Data SourcesWe searched MEDLINE, OVID Epub and EMBASE for published literature on human subjects in English up to June 9 2020.Study Eligibility CriteriaWe included randomized controlled trials; cohort studies; case series with ≥10 patients; and experimental or observational design that evaluated antibiotic prescribing.ParticipantsThe study participants were patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, across all healthcare settings (hospital and community) and age groups (paediatric and adult).MethodsThe main outcome of interest was proportion of COVID-19 patients prescribed an antibiotic, stratified by geographical region, severity of illness and age. We pooled proportion data using random effects meta-analysis.ResultsWe screened 7469 studies, from which 154 were included in the final analysis. Antibiotic data were available from 30 623 patients. The prevalence of antibiotic prescribing was 74.6% (95% CI 68.3–80.0%). On univariable meta-regression, antibiotic prescribing was lower in children (prescribing prevalence odds ratio (OR) 0.10, 95% CI 0.03–0.33) compared with adults. Antibiotic prescribing was higher with increasing patient age (OR 1.45 per 10 year increase, 95% CI 1.18–1.77) and higher with increasing proportion of patients requiring mechanical ventilation (OR 1.33 per 10% increase, 95% CI 1.15–1.54). Estimated bacterial co-infection was 8.6% (95% CI 4.7–15.2%) from 31 studies.ConclusionsThree-quarters of patients with COVID-19 receive antibiotics, prescribing is significantly higher than the estimated prevalence of bacterial co-infection. Unnecessary antibiotic use is likely to be high in patients with COVID-19.     

Clinical Features of Olfactory Dysfunction in COVID-19 Patients

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the subjective and objective olfactory function in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and the effect of olfactory training.MethodsA prospective cohort study was performed in 53 patients who recovered from COVID-19 and visited our tertiary hospital. Subjective olfactory function was evaluated using the 11-point Likert scale (0–10) and the Korean version of the Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders (QOD). Objective olfactory function was evaluated using Cross-Cultural Smell Identification Test (CC-SIT). Confirmed patients were followed up after 2 months of olfactory training.ResultsThe median, interquartile range (Q1–Q3) score of subjective olfactory function significantly deteriorated in patients with olfactory dysfunction (OD) than in those without OD, even after 3 months of onset (11-point Likert scale, 8, 6–9 vs. 10, 10–10; short version of QOD-negative statements, 19, 16–21 vs. 21, 21–21; QOD-visual analogue scale, 7, 1–13 vs. 0, 0–0; all P < 0.001). However, the objective olfactory function was not significantly different between the two groups (median, interquartile range; 11, 9–11 vs. 11, 9–11, P = 0.887). The percentage of patients with objective hyposmia (CC-SIT ≤ 10) was also not significantly different (47.4% vs. 40%, P = 0.762). OD in COVID-19 was normalized after 2 months of olfactory training in 70% of patients even after 3 months of olfactory impairment.ConclusionAlthough subjective olfactory function is significantly decreased in the OD group, the objective olfactory function was not significantly different. Moreover, olfactory training is effective in COVID-19 patients with OD.     

Prevalence of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome symptoms at different follow-up periods: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundPost-acute coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) syndrome is now recognized as a complex systemic disease that is associated with substantial morbidity.ObjectivesTo estimate the prevalence of persistent symptoms and signs at least 12 weeks after acute COVID-19 at different follow-up periods.Data sourcesSearches were conducted up to October 2021 in Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, and PubMed.Study eligibility criteria, participants and interventionsArticles in English that reported the prevalence of persistent symptoms among individuals with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and included at least 50 patients with a follow-up of at least 12 weeks after acute illness.MethodsRandom-effect meta-analysis was performed to produce a pooled prevalence for each symptom at four different follow-up time intervals. Between-study heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic and was explored via meta-regression, considering several a priori study-level variables. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for prevalence studies and comparative studies, respectively.ResultsAfter screening 3209 studies, a total of 63 studies were eligible, with a total COVID-19 population of 257 348. The most commonly reported symptoms were fatigue, dyspnea, sleep disorder, and difficulty concentrating (32%, 25%, 24%, and 22%, respectively, at 3- to <6-month follow-up); effort intolerance, fatigue, sleep disorder, and dyspnea (45%, 36%, 29%, and 25%, respectively, at 6- to <9-month follow-up); fatigue (37%) and dyspnea (21%) at 9 to <12 months; and fatigue, dyspnea, sleep disorder, and myalgia (41%, 31%, 30%, and 22%, respectively, at >12-month follow-up). There was substantial between-study heterogeneity for all reported symptom prevalences. Meta-regressions identified statistically significant effect modifiers: world region, male sex, diabetes mellitus, disease severity, and overall study quality score. Five of six studies including a comparator group consisting of COVID-19–negative cases observed significant adjusted associations between COVID-19 and several long-term symptoms.ConclusionsThis systematic review found that a large proportion of patients experience post-acute COVID-19 syndrome 3 to 12 months after recovery from the acute phase of COVID-19. However, available studies of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome are highly heterogeneous. Future studies need to have appropriate comparator groups, standardized symptom definitions and measurements, and longer follow-up.     

Global prevalence of latent toxoplasmosis in pregnant women: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundToxoplasma gondii infection, if acquired as an acute infection during pregnancy, can have substantial adverse effects on mothers, fetuses and newborns. Latent toxoplasmosis also causes a variety of pathologies and has been linked to adverse effects on pregnancy.ObjectiveHere, we present results of a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the global prevalence of latent toxoplasmosis in pregnant women.Data sourceWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SciELO and Scopus databases for relevant studies that were published between 1 January 1988 and 20 July 2019.Study eligibility criteriaAll population-based, cross-sectional and longitudinal studies reporting the prevalence of latent toxoplasmosis in healthy pregnant women were considered for inclusion.ParticipantsPregnant women who were tested for prevalence of latent toxoplasmosis.InterventionsThere were no interventions.MethodWe used a random effects model to calculate pooled prevalence estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We grouped prevalence data according to the geographic regions defined by the World Health Organization (WHO). Multiple subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed.ResultsIn total, 311 studies with 320 relevant data sets representing 1 148 677 pregnant women from 91 countries were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The global prevalence of latent toxoplasmosis in pregnant women was estimated at 33.8% (95% CI, 31.8–35.9%; 345 870/1 148 677). South America had the highest pooled prevalence (56.2%; 50.5–62.8%) of latent toxoplasmosis in pregnant women, whereas the Western Pacific region had the lowest prevalence (11.8%; 8.1–16.0%). A significantly higher prevalence of latent toxoplasmosis was associated with countries with low income and low human development indices (p < 0.001).ConclusionOur results indicate a high level of latent toxoplasmosis in pregnant women, especially in some low- and middle-income countries of Africa and South America, although the local prevalence varied markedly. These results suggest a need for improved prevention and control efforts to reduce the health risks to women and newborns.     

Effect of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin on the mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundHydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without azithromycin have been widely promoted to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) following early in vitro antiviral effects against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess whether chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin decreased COVID-19 mortality compared with the standard of care.Data sourcesPubMed, Web of Science, Embase Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and MedRxiv were searched up to 25 July 2020.Study eligibility criteriaWe included published and unpublished studies comparing the mortality rate between patients treated with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin and patients managed with standard of care.ParticipantsPatients ≥18 years old with confirmed COVID-19.InterventionsChloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin.MethodsEffect sizes were pooled using a random-effects model. Multiple subgroup analyses were conducted to assess drug safety.ResultsThe initial search yielded 839 articles, of which 29 met our inclusion criteria. All studies except one were conducted on hospitalized patients and evaluated the effects of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin. Among the 29 articles, three were randomized controlled trials, one was a non-randomized trial and 25 were observational studies, including 11 with a critical risk of bias and 14 with a serious or moderate risk of bias. After excluding studies with critical risk of bias, the meta-analysis included 11 932 participants for the hydroxychloroquine group, 8081 for the hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin group and 12 930 for the control group. Hydroxychloroquine was not significantly associated with mortality: pooled relative risk (RR) 0.83 (95% CI 0.65–1.06, n = 17 studies) for all studies and RR = 1.09 (95% CI 0.97–1.24, n = 3 studies) for randomized controlled trials. Hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin was associated with an increased mortality (RR = 1.27; 95% CI 1.04–1.54, n = 7 studies). We found similar results with a Bayesian meta-analysis.ConclusionHydroxychloroquine alone was not associated with reduced mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients but the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin significantly increased mortality.     

Impact of COVID-19 on maternal and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundPrevious outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 (SARS-CoV-1) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) have been associated with unfavourable pregnancy outcomes. SARS-CoV-2 belongs to the human coronavirus family, and since this infection shows a pandemic trend it will involve many pregnant women.AimsThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) on maternal and neonatal outcomes.SourcesPubMed, EMBASE, MedRxiv, Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to 8th May 2020. Articles focusing on pregnancy and perinatal outcomes of COVID-19 were eligible. Participants were pregnant women with COVID-19.ContentThe meta-analysis was conducted following the PRISMA and MOOSE reporting guidelines. Bias risk was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) manual. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42042020184752). Twenty-four articles, including 1100 pregnancies, were selected. The pooled prevalence of pneumonia was 89% (95%CI 70–100), while the prevalence of women admitted to the intensive care unit was 8% (95%CI 1–20). Three stillbirths and five maternal deaths were reported. A pooled prevalence of 85% (95%CI 72–94) was observed for caesarean deliveries. There were three neonatal deaths. The prevalence of COVID-19-related admission to the neonatal intensive care unit was 2% (95%CI 0–6). Nineteen out of 444 neonates were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA at birth. Elevated levels of IgM and IgG Serum antibodies were reported in one case, but negative swab.ImplicationsAlthough adverse outcomes such as ICU admission or patient death can occur, the clinical course of COVID-19 in most women is not severe, and the infection does not significantly influence the pregnancy. A high caesarean delivery rate is reported, but there is no clinical evidence supporting this mode of delivery. Indeed, in most cases the disease does not threaten the mother, and vertical transmission has not been clearly demonstrated. Therefore, COVID-19 should not be considered as an indication for elective caesarean section.     

Defining COVID-19–associated pulmonary aspergillosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundPulmonary aspergillosis may complicate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and contribute to excess mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The disease is poorly understood, in part due to discordant definitions across studies.ObjectivesWe sought to review the prevalence, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of COVID-19–associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) and compare research definitions.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and MedRxiv were searched from inception to October 12, 2021.Study eligibility criteriaICU cohort studies and CAPA case series including ≥3 patients were included.ParticipantsAdult patients in ICUs with COVID-19.InterventionsPatients were reclassified according to four research definitions. We assessed risk of bias with an adaptation of the Joanna Briggs Institute cohort checklist tool for systematic reviews.MethodsWe calculated CAPA prevalence using the Freeman-Tukey random effects method. Correlations between definitions were assessed with Spearman's rank test. Associations between antifungals and outcome were assessed with random effects meta-analysis.ResultsFifty-one studies were included. Among 3297 COVID-19 patients in ICU cohort studies, 313 were diagnosed with CAPA (prevalence 10%; 95% CI 8%–13%). Two hundred seventy-seven patients had patient-level data allowing reclassification. Definitions had limited correlation with one another (ρ = 0.268–0.447; p < 0.001), with the exception of Koehler and Verweij (ρ = 0.893; p < 0.001); 33.9% of patients reported to have CAPA did not fulfill any research definitions. Patients were diagnosed after a median of 8 days (interquartile range 5–14) in ICUs. Tracheobronchitis occurred in 3% of patients examined with bronchoscopy. The mortality rate was high (59.2%). Applying CAPA research definitions did not strengthen the association between mould-active antifungals and survival.ConclusionsThe reported prevalence of CAPA is significant but may be exaggerated by nonstandard definitions.     

Bacterial co-infection and secondary infection in patients with COVID-19: a living rapid review and meta-analysis

BackgroundBacterial co-pathogens are commonly identified in viral respiratory infections and are important causes of morbidity and mortality. The prevalence of bacterial infection in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 is not well understood.AimsTo determine the prevalence of bacterial co-infection (at presentation) and secondary infection (after presentation) in patients with COVID-19.SourcesWe performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, OVID Epub and EMBASE databases for English language literature from 2019 to April 16, 2020. Studies were included if they (a) evaluated patients with confirmed COVID-19 and (b) reported the prevalence of acute bacterial infection.ContentData were extracted by a single reviewer and cross-checked by a second reviewer. The main outcome was the proportion of COVID-19 patients with an acute bacterial infection. Any bacteria detected from non-respiratory-tract or non-bloodstream sources were excluded. Of 1308 studies screened, 24 were eligible and included in the rapid review representing 3338 patients with COVID-19 evaluated for acute bacterial infection. In the meta-analysis, bacterial co-infection (estimated on presentation) was identified in 3.5% of patients (95%CI 0.4–6.7%) and secondary bacterial infection in 14.3% of patients (95%CI 9.6–18.9%). The overall proportion of COVID-19 patients with bacterial infection was 6.9% (95%CI 4.3–9.5%). Bacterial infection was more common in critically ill patients (8.1%, 95%CI 2.3–13.8%). The majority of patients with COVID-19 received antibiotics (71.9%, 95%CI 56.1 to 87.7%).ImplicationsBacterial co-infection is relatively infrequent in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The majority of these patients may not require empirical antibacterial treatment.     

Antibiotic resistance associated with the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundCOVID-19 and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are two intersecting global public health crises.ObjectiveWe aimed to describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on AMR across health care settings.Data sourceA search was conducted in December 2021 in WHO COVID-19 Research Database with forward citation searching up to June 2022.Study eligibilityStudies evaluating the impact of COVID-19 on AMR in any population were included and influencing factors were extracted. Reporting of enhanced infection prevention and control and/or antimicrobial stewardship programs was noted.MethodsPooling was done separately for Gram-negative and Gram-positive organisms. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed.ResultsOf 6036 studies screened, 28 were included and 23 provided sufficient data for meta-analysis. The majority of studies focused on hospital settings (n = 25, 89%). The COVID-19 pandemic was not associated with a change in the incidence density (incidence rate ratio 0.99, 95% CI: 0.67–1.47) or proportion (risk ratio 0.91, 95% CI: 0.55–1.49) of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or vancomycin-resistant enterococci cases. A non-statistically significant increase was noted for resistant Gram-negative organisms (i.e. extended-spectrum beta-lactamase, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, carbapenem or multi-drug resistant or carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Acinetobacter baumannii, incidence rate ratio 1.64, 95% CI: 0.92–2.92; risk ratio 1.08, 95% CI: 0.91–1.29). The absence of reported enhanced infection prevention and control and/or antimicrobial stewardship programs initiatives was associated with an increase in gram-negative AMR (risk ratio 1.11, 95% CI: 1.03–1.20). However, a test for subgroup differences showed no statistically significant difference between the presence and absence of these initiatives (p 0.40).ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic may have hastened the emergence and transmission of AMR, particularly for Gram-negative organisms in hospital settings. But there is considerable heterogeneity in both the AMR metrics used and the rate of resistance reported across studies. These findings reinforce the need for strengthened infection prevention, antimicrobial stewardship, and AMR surveillance in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Sexuality of Chinese women around menopause

ObjectiveTo study the sexual activities and prevalence of sexual dysfunctions in midlife Chinese women and their correlations with demographic factors, sexual dissatisfaction and interpersonal difficulty.Study designThis is a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of women aged 40–60, who requested gynecological checkup or attend social activities at Women's Club.Main outcome measuresSexual activities, sexual dysfunctions, sexual dissatisfaction, demographic factors and interpersonal difficulty were assessed by self-administered questionnaire.ResultsAmong 371 eligible subjects, 22.4% and 39.6% women had low intimacy and coitus frequency (0 to <12 acts in one year), respectively. The odds ratios for low coital frequency in the natural menopausal and surgical menopausal subgroups were 3.00 and 5.09, respectively (95% confidence interval: 1.73–5.19 and 1.77–14.69, respectively). Overall, 77.2% women had at least one type of sexual dysfunctions; this proportion was highest in the surgically menopausal subgroup (88.9%) followed by the naturally menopausal subgroup (79.3%), the perimenopausal subgroup (78.2%) and the premenopausal subgroup (72.2%) (p = 0.003). No lubrication (42.9%) was the commonest sexual dysfunction and predominantly affected naturally and surgically menopaused women (p = 0.001). Sexual dysfunction was the major contributor to sexual dissatisfaction (0.80), followed by interpersonal difficulty (0.2). Arousal disorder was the pivot of interaction between sexual dissatisfaction, menopausal status and low coital frequency.ConclusionsChinese women had fewer intimate contacts and less coitus when menopause progressed. No lubrication was the commonest sexual dysfunction and predominantly affected menopaused women. Our model showed that sexual dysfunction is the main contributor to sexual dissatisfaction.     

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.     

The prevalence of mental disorders in older people in Western countries – a meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo conduct a meta-analysis assessing the prevalence of mental disorders in older people in Europe and North America.MethodStudies that reported prevalence rates of mental disorders in older people from the general population were identified through MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and reference lists for the period between January 2000 and December 2011. Studies were included if they reported prevalence rates of mental disorders in older people (50+ years) from the community. The final sample comprised 25 studies. Prevalence rates were extracted, and effect sizes were transformed into logits. Random-effects models were calculated due to significant heterogeneity. In meta-regression analyses possible sources of bias, including age of onset, gender distribution, and risk of bias were examined. To analyze the robustness of the results, sensitivity analyses were performed. Publication bias was assessed with funnel plots and the Egger method.ResultsDisorders with the highest prevalence estimates were dimensional depression (19.47%), lifetime major depression (16.52%), and lifetime alcohol use disorders (11.71%). Disorders with the lowest estimates were current and lifetime drug use disorders (0.34% and 0.19%, respectively), and current bipolar disorder and current agoraphobia (both 0.53%).ConclusionThe majority of studies investigated major depression, panic disorder and social phobia. Future research requires a larger database on the epidemiology of mental disorders in the elderly. Furthermore, an improvement to the methodology that addresses the challenges of older age and produces comparable data, including the use of instruments tailored to the needs of older people, is required.     

Prevalence of frailty in patients with lower extremity peripheral arterial disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundIncreasing studies have reported on the prevalence of frailty in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the pooled prevalence of frailty in patients with lower extremity PAD.MethodsTwo authors systematically searched PubMed and Embase databases from their inception to August 8, 2022. Original articles that reported the prevalence of frailty in patients with lower extremity PAD were included. The prevalence of frailty in patients with lower extremity PAD was pooled using a random-effect model. Meta-regression, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the heterogeneity.ResultsEighteen studies reported on 17 articles involving 1,726,343 patients with lower extremity PAD were identified. The pooled prevalence of frailty in patients with lower extremity PAD was 49 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 37–61 %), with significant heterogeneity between studies (I ² = 100 %, p < 0.001). Multivariable meta-regression showed that only the severity of PAD (coefficient 0.270; 95 % CI 0.017–0.523, p = 0.039) was significantly associated with the heterogeneity. In subgroup analysis, the pooled prevalence of frailty was higher in critical limb ischemia or chronic limb-threatening ischemia (54 %) than all PAD (48 %); the pooled prevalence of frailty was 64 %, 51 %, and 54 % for Modified Frailty Index-5, Modified Frailty Index-11, and Clinical Frailty Scale, respectively. The pooled prevalence of frailty appeared to be lower in male (39 %) than the female patients (47 %).ConclusionsThe prevalence of frailty was higher in patients with lower extremity PAD, suggesting frailty is a common condition. This finding highlights the significance of assessing frailty in patients with lower extremity PAD.     

New-onset diabetes in COVID-19 and clinical outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDDiabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with adverse clinical outcomes and high mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The relationship between diabetes and COVID-19 is known to be bidirectional.AIMTo analyze the rate of new-onset diabetes in COVID-19 patients and compare the clinical outcomes of new-onset diabetes, pre-existing diabetes, hyperglycemic, and non-diabetes among COVID-19 patients.METHODSWe used the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement for the present meta-analysis. Online databases were searched for all peer-reviewed articles published until November 6, 2020. Articles were screened using Covidence and data extracted. Further analysis was done using comprehensive meta-analysis. Among the 128 studies detected after thorough database searching, seven were included in the quantitative analysis. The proportion was reported with 95% confidence interval (CI) and heterogeneity was assessed using I².RESULTSAnalysis showed that 19.70% (CI: 10.93-32.91) of COVID-19 patients had associated DM, and 25.23% (CI: 19.07-32.58) had associated hyperglycemia. The overall mortality rate was 15.36% (CI: 12.57-18.68) of all COVID-19 cases, irrespective of their DM status. The mortality rate was 9.26% among non-diabetic patients, 10.59% among patients with COVID-19 associated hyperglycemia, 16.03% among known DM patients, and 24.96% among COVID-19 associated DM patients. The overall occurrence of adverse events was 20.52% (CI: 14.21-28.70) among COVID-19 patients in the included studies, 15.29% among non-diabetic patients, 20.41% among patients with COVID-19 associated hyperglycemia, 20.69% among known DM patients, and 45.85% among new-onset DM. Meta-regression showed an increasing rate of mortality among new hyperglycemic patients, known diabetics, and new-onset DM patients in comparison to those without diabetes.CONCLUSIONA significantly higher rate of new onset DM and hyperglycemia was observed. Higher mortality rates and adverse events were seen in patients with new-onset DM and hyperglycemia than in the non-diabetic population.     

Thyroid disorders in patients with myasthenia gravis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundOur purpose was to determine the prevalence of thyroid disorders in myasthenia gravis (MG) or whether MG was associated with an increased risk of thyroid disorders.MethodsPubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane database, Google Scholar and the Chinese Biomedical Databases were searched about the relationship between thyroid disorders and myasthenia gravis up to November 30, 2018, without language restrictions. The prevalence and relative risk (RR) for thyroid disorders were pooled by the R and STATA software.Results39 papers with 24,927 MG patients were ultimately included for analysis in this meta-analysis. The pooled estimate of thyroid autoimmunity prevalence in MG patients was 10.1% (95%CI 6.7%–15.1%). Subgroups in patients with thyroid autoimmunity showed the prevalence of positive TGAb was the highest in MG patients (12.6%, 95%CI 8.1%–19.1%), followed by GD (6.0%, 95%CI 4.2%–8.5%), HT (4.6%, 95%CI 1.9%–10.5%). Moreover, the pooled estimated prevalence of thyroid dysfunction in MG patients was 6.8% (95%CI 4.6%–9.8%). After stratification, the results showed the prevalence of hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism in MG cases were 5.6% (95%CI 3.9%–8.0%) and 2.6% (95%CI 1.7%–4.1%), respectively. In addition, meta-analysis of 2 studies showed that MG was significantly associated with the increased risk of thyroid autoimmunity (OR = 2.86; 95%CI 1.54–5.28, P = .001).ConclusionsThis systemic review and meta-analysis provides reliable evidence that thyroid disorders are prevalent in MG, especially TGAb positivity, GD, hyperthyroidism, and HT, and MG is associated with increased risk for thyroid autoimmunity.     

Acute kidney injury following the concurrent administration of antipseudomonal β-lactams and vancomycin: a network meta-analysis

BackgroundAcute kidney injury is a major complication of vancomycin treatment, especially when it is co-administered with other nephrotoxins.ObjectivesThis meta-analysis aims to comparatively assess the nephrotoxicity of antipseudomonal β-lactams when combined with vancomycin.Data sourcesMedline, Scopus, CENTRAL and Clinicaltrials.gov databases were systematically searched from inception through 20 August 2019.Study eligibility criteriaStudies evaluating acute kidney injury risk following the concurrent use of antipseudomonal β-lactams and vancomycin were selected.ParticipantsAdult and paediatric patients treated in hospital or intensive care unit.InterventionsAdministration of vancomycin combined with any antipseudomonal β-lactam.MethodsAcute kidney injury incidence was defined as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included severity, onset, duration, need of renal replacement therapy, length of hospitalization and mortality. Quality of evidence was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool and the Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis approach.ResultsForty-seven cohort studies were included, with a total of 56 984 patients. In the adult population, the combination of piperacillin–tazobactam and vancomycin resulted in significantly higher nephrotoxicity rates than vancomycin monotherapy (odds ratio (OR) 2.05, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.17–3.46) and its concurrent use with meropenem (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.02–3.10) or cefepime (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.13–2.77). In paediatric patients, acute kidney injury was significantly higher with vancomycin plus piperacillin–tazobactam than vancomycin alone (OR 4.18, 95% CI 1.01–17.29) or vancomycin plus cefepime OR 3.71, 95% CI 1.08–11.24). No significant differences were estimated for the secondary outcomes. Credibility of outcomes was judged as moderate, mainly due to imprecision and inter-study heterogeneity.ConclusionsThe combination of vancomycin and piperacillin–tazobactam is associated with higher acute kidney injury rates than its parallel use with meropenem or cefepime. Current evidence is exclusively observational and is limited by inter-study heterogeneity. Randomized controlled trials are needed to verify these results and define preventive strategies to minimize nephrotoxicity risk.     

Clinical outcome in solid organ transplant recipients affected by COVID-19 compared to general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundA significant increased risk of complications and mortality in immunocompromised patients affected by COVID-19 has been described. However, the impact of COVID-19 in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients is an issue still under debate, due to conflicting evidence that has emerged from different observational studies.ObjectivesWe performed a systematic review with a meta-analysis to assess the clinical outcome in SOT recipients with COVID-19 compared with the general population.Data sourcesPubMed-MEDLINE and Scopus were independently searched until 13 October 2021.Study eligibility criteriaProspective or retrospective observational studies comparing clinical outcome in SOT recipients versus general populations affected by COVID-19 were included. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality.ParticipantsParticipants were patients with confirmed COVID-19.InterventionsInterventions reviewed were SOTs.MethodsThe quality of the included studies was independently assessed with the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool for observational studies. The meta-analysis was performed by pooling ORs retrieved from studies providing adjustment for confounders using a random-effects model with the inverse variance method. Multiple subgroups and sensitivity analyses were conducted to investigate the source of heterogeneity.ResultsA total of 3501 articles were screened, and 31 observational studies (N = 590 375; 5759 SOT recipients vs. 584 616 general population) were included in the meta-analyses. No difference in 30-day mortality rate was found in the primary analysis, including studies providing adjustment for confounders (N = 17; 3752 SOT recipients vs. 159 745 general population; OR: 1.13; 95% CI, 0.94–1.35; I² = 33.9%). No evidence of publication bias was reported. A higher risk of intensive care unit admission (OR: 1.56; 95% CI, 1.03–2.63) and occurrence of acute kidney injury (OR: 2.50; 95% CI, 1.81–3.45) was found in SOT recipients.ConclusionsNo increased risk in mortality was found in SOT recipients affected by COVID-19 compared with the general population when adjusted for demographic and clinical features and COVID-19 severity.