The role of chest CT in management of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: A longitudinal multi-center study in Chongqing,China

Background: Multiple societies including the Fleischner Society do not recommend that CT is routinely used in asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections; however, this advice is based on the limited evidence. In this study, we aim to confirm whether it is necessary to do CT scans in SARS-CoV-2 asymptomatic infections by summarizing the longitudinal chest CT and clinical features of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections.Methods: A total of 33 individuals (14 men and 19 women) with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections were retrospectively enrolled. Clinical data of CT positive and negative groups were compared. Longitudinal chest CT scans were reviewed for CT features and analyzed for temporal change.Results: Thirty-two (97%) individuals had positive results for first RT-PCR testing. For clinical data, only monocyte count showed a significant difference between CT positive and negative groups. For first chest CT, only eighteen (54.5%) individuals had abnormal manifestations, common CT features were GGO (88.9%) and consolidation (33.3%), the median number of segments involved was 3.0 (1.0-7.5). No case in CT negative group was abnormal on the follow-up CT. Three patterns of evolution throughout series of CT were observed in CT positive group, including gradual improvement (12, 66.7%), mismatch to improvement (3, 16.7%) and mild progression to improvement (3, 16.7%). On last CT scans, most cases had radiographic improvement but residual abnormalities. Significant differences were exhibited in density, long diameter, number of lung segments involved, and percentage of consolidation between the first and last CT scans. All cases had stable conditions and finally confirmed negative for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests without developing into severe pneumonia.Conclusion: Considering poor performance of CT in screening, stable conditions during followup, and good outcomes in asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, we confirm that it is unnecessary to do CT scans in asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections.     

COVID-19 associated with pulmonary aspergillosis: A literature review

Bacterial or virus co-infections with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been reported in many studies, however, the knowledge on Aspergillus co-infection among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was limited. This literature review aims to explore and describe the updated information about COVID-19 associated with pulmonary aspergillosis. We found that Aspergillus spp. can cause co-infections in patients with COVID-19, especially in severe/critical illness. The incidence of IPA in COVID-19 ranged from 19.6% to 33.3%. Acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring mechanical ventilation was the common complications, and the overall mortality was high, which could be up to 64.7% (n = 22) in the pooled analysis of 34 reported cases. The conventional risk factors of invasive aspergillosis were not common among these specific populations. Fungus culture and galactomannan test, especially from respiratory specimens could help early diagnosis. Aspergillus fumigatus was the most common species causing co-infection in COVID-19 patients, followed by Aspergillus flavus. Although voriconazole is the recommended anti-Aspergillus agent and also the most commonly used antifungal agent, aspergillosis caused by azole-resistant Aspergillus is also possible. Additionally, voriconazole should be used carefully in the concern of complicated drug–drug interaction and enhancing cardiovascular toxicity on anti-SARS-CoV-2 agents. Finally, this review suggests that clinicians should keep alerting the possible occurrence of pulmonary aspergillosis in severe/critical COVID-19 patients, and aggressively microbiologic study in addition to SARS-CoV-2 via respiratory specimens should be indicated.     

Antibody dynamics to SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic COVID-19 infections

Background

The missing asymptomatic COVID-19 infections have been overlooked because of the imperfect sensitivity of the nucleic acid testing (NAT). Globally understanding the humoral immunity in asymptomatic carriers will provide scientific knowledge for developing serological tests, improving early identification, and implementing more rational control strategies against the pandemic.

Measure

Utilizing both NAT and commercial kits for serum IgM and IgG antibodies, we extensively screened 11 766 epidemiologically suspected individuals on enrollment and 63 asymptomatic individuals were detected and recruited. Sixty-three healthy individuals and 51 mild patients without any preexisting conditions were set as controls. Serum IgM and IgG profiles were further probed using a SARS-CoV-2 proteome microarray, and neutralizing antibody was detected by a pseudotyped virus neutralization assay system. The dynamics of antibodies were analyzed with exposure time or symptoms onset.

Results

A combination test of NAT and serological testing for IgM antibody discovered 55.5% of the total of 63 asymptomatic infections, which significantly raises the detection sensitivity when compared with the NAT alone (19%). Serum proteome microarray analysis demonstrated that asymptomatics mainly produced IgM and IgG antibodies against S1 and N proteins out of 20 proteins of SARS-CoV-2. Different from strong and persistent N-specific antibodies, S1-specific IgM responses, which evolved in asymptomatic individuals as early as the seventh day after exposure, peaked on days from 17 days to 25 days, and then disappeared in two months, might be used as an early diagnostic biomarker. 11.8% (6/51) mild patients and 38.1% (24/63) asymptomatic individuals did not produce neutralizing antibody. In particular, neutralizing antibody in asymptomatics gradually vanished in two months.

Conclusion

Our findings might have important implications for the definition of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections, diagnosis, serological survey, public health, and immunization strategies.

     

Quercetin for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Currently approved therapies for COVID-19 are mostly limited by their low availability, high costs or the requirement of parenteral administration by trained medical personnel in an in-hospital setting. Quercetin is a cheap and easily accessible therapeutic option for COVID-19 patients. However, it has not been evaluated in a systematic review until now. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to assess the effect of quercetin on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Various databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase were searched from inception until 5 October 2022 and results from six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were pooled using a random-effects model. All analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.4 with odds ratio (OR) as the effect measure. Quercetin decreased the risk of intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10–0.99) and the incidence of hospitalisation (OR = 0.25; 95% CI 0.10–0.62) but did not decrease the risk of all-cause mortality and the rate of no recovery. Quercetin may be of benefit in COVID-19 patients, especially if administered in its phytosome formulation which greatly enhances its bioavailability but large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.     

Bioethical perspective of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19: A systematic review

Convalescent plasma therapy (CP) has long been used to prevent and treat various infectious diseases before COVID-19 such as SARS, MERS, and H1N1. Because the viral and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 share the similarities between SARS and MERS, CP treatment could be a promising treatment option to save COVID-19. With only low quality medical evidence, but massive media support and a very significant public demand for the use of convalescent plasma for COVID-19, we are now faced with an ethical dilemma. Therefore, this paper uses a structured analysis that focuses on the preferred reporting items for a systematic review of ethical issues regarding the use of Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19. The use of convalescent plasma must meet the ethical principles of autonomy; such as voluntary, informed consent, and confidentiality. Consideration of the risk-benefit ratio for potential donor recipients also needs to be considered in order to meet the beneficence and non-maleficence principles. The principle of justice also needs to be applied both to donors, donor recipients and health workers, such as determining the priority of donor recipients, due to the increasing demand for convalescent plasma amid the limited circumstances of patients who have recovered from Covid-19 who voluntarily donate.     

Prophylaxis for COVID-19: a systematic review

BackgroundWhile the landscape of vaccine and treatment candidates against the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been reviewed systematically, prophylactic candidates remain unexplored.ObjectivesTo map pre- and postexposure prophylactic (PrEP and PEP) candidate for COVID-19.Data sourcesPubMed/Medline, Embase, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform clinical trial registries and medRxiv.Study eligibility criteria and participantsAll studies in humans or animals and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in humans reporting primary data on prophylactic candidates against COVID-19, excluding studies focused on key populations.InterventionsPrEP and PEP candidate for COVID-19.MethodsSystematic review and qualitative synthesis of COVID-19 PrEP and PEP studies and RCTs complemented by search of medRxiv and PubMed and Embase for studies reporting RCT outcomes since systematic review search completion.ResultsWe identified 13 studies (from 2119 database records) and 117 RCTs (from 5565 RCTs listed in the registries) that met the inclusion criteria. Non-RCT studies reported on cross-sectional studies using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in humans (n = 2) or reported on animal studies (n = 7), most of which used antibodies. All five completed RCTs focused on the use of HCQ as either PrEP or PEP, and these and the cross-sectional studies reported no prophylactic effect. The majority of ongoing RCTs evaluated HCQ or other existing candidates including non–severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines, anti(retro)virals or use of vitamins and supplements.ConclusionsThe key message from completed studies and RCTs seems to be that HCQ does not work. There is little evidence regarding other compounds, with all RCTs using candidates other than HCQ still ongoing. It remains to be seen if the portfolio of existing molecules being evaluated in RCTs will identify successful prophylaxis against COVID-19 or if there is a need for the development of new candidates.     

Effect of COVID-19 vaccination on semen parameters: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination on semen parameters through systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched by June 2022. Studies were considered eligible if they compared semen parameters before and after COVID-19 vaccination or between vaccinated and unvaccinated men, with no restrictions on vaccine types or doses. The effect size was calculated as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the sources of heterogeneity measured by the I² statistic, with publication bias evaluated by Egger's test. Twelve cohort studies involving 914 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In a comparison of vaccinated versus unvaccinated group, the pooled data revealed no significant differences in semen volume (MD = 0.18 ml, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.38), sperm concentration (MD = 1.16 million/ml, 95% CI −1.34 to 3.66), total sperm motility (MD = −0.14%, 95% CI −2.84 to 2.56), progressive sperm motility (MD = −1.06%, 95% CI −2.88 to 0.77), total sperm count (MD = 5.92 million, 95% CI −10.22 to 22.05), total motile sperm count (MD = 2.18 million, 95% CI −1.28 to 5.63), total progressively motile sperm count (MD = −3.87 million, 95% CI −13.16 to 5.43), and sperm morphology (MD = 0.07%, 95% CI −0.84 to 0.97). The results also remained similar across messenger ribonucleic acid, viral-vector, and inactivated COVID-19 vaccines. Sensitivity analysis identified two individual studies that contributed to heterogeneity, while the effect size was not materially altered. No obvious publication bias was detected among included studies. Our finding suggested that COVID-19 vaccination had no detrimental impact on semen quality, which could be potentially helpful to reduce male vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccination coverage.     

Secondary infections in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: incidence and predictive factors

ObjectivesThe aim of our study was to describe the incidence and predictive factors of secondary infections in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsThis was a cohort study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital between 25th February and 6th April 2020 (NCT04318366). We considered secondary bloodstream infections (BSIs) or possible lower respiratory tract infections (pLRTIs) occurring 48 hours after hospital admission until death or discharge. We calculated multivariable Fine–Gray models to assess factors associated with risk of secondary infections.ResultsAmong 731 patients, a secondary infection was diagnosed in 68 patients (9.3%); 58/731 patients (7.9%) had at least one BSI and 22/731 patients (3.0%) at least one pLRTI. The overall 28-day cumulative incidence was 16.4% (95%CI 12.4–21.0%). Most of the BSIs were due to Gram-positive pathogens (76/106 isolates, 71.7%), specifically coagulase-negative staphylococci (53/76, 69.7%), while among Gram-negatives (23/106, 21.7%) Acinetobacter baumanii (7/23, 30.4%) and Escherichia coli (5/23, 21.7%) predominated. pLRTIs were caused mainly by Gram-negative pathogens (14/26, 53.8%). Eleven patients were diagnosed with putative invasive aspergillosis. At multivariable analysis, factors associated with secondary infections were low baseline lymphocyte count (≤0.7 versus >0.7 per 10⁹/L, subdistribution hazard ratios (sdHRs) 1.93, 95%CI 1.11–3.35), baseline PaO₂/FiO₂ (per 100 points lower: sdHRs 1.56, 95%CI 1.21–2.04), and intensive-care unit (ICU) admission in the first 48 hours (sdHR 2.51, 95%CI 1.04–6.05).ConclusionsPatients hospitalized with COVID-19 had a high incidence of secondary infections. At multivariable analysis, early need for ICU, respiratory failure, and severe lymphopenia were identified as risk factors for secondary infections.     

Pathologic features of COVID-19: A concise review

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), first appeared in December 2019, in Wuhan, China and evolved into a pandemic. As Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2) is one of the potential target receptors for SARS-CoV-2 in human body, which is expressed in different tissues, multiple organs might become affected. In the initial phase of the current pandemic, a handful of post-mortem case-series revealed COVID-19-related pathological changes in various organs. Although pathological examination is not a feasible method of diagnosis, it can elucidate pathological changes, pathogenesis of the disease, and the cause of death in COVID-19 cases. Herein, we thoroughly reviewed multiple organs including lung, gastrointestinal tract, liver, kidney, skin, heart, blood, spleen, lymph nodes, brain, blood vessels, and placenta in terms of COVID-19-related pathological alterations. Also, these findings were compared with SARS and MERS infection, wherever applicable. We found a diverse range of pathological changes, some of which resemble those found in SARS and MERS.     

COVID-19 and liver dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of retrospective studies

Recently, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is the most significant global health crisis. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis to find the association between liver injuries and the severity of COVID-19 disease. Online databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Science direct, were searched to detect relevant publications up to 16 April 2020. Depending on the heterogeneity between studies, a fixed- or random-effects model was applied to pool data. Publication bias Egger's test was also performed. Meta-analysis of 20 retrospective studies (3428 patients), identified that patients with a severe manifestation of COVID-19 exhibited significantly higher levels of alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and bilirubin values with prolonged prothrombin time. Furthermore, lower albumin level was associated with a severe presentation of COVID-19. Liver dysfunction was associated with a severe outcome of COVID-19 disease. Close monitoring of the occurrence of liver dysfunction is beneficial in early warning of unfavorable outcomes.     

Clinical characteristics of asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with mild COVID-19

ObjectivesDetailed knowledge on the prevalence of asymptomatic cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the clinical characteristics of mild COVID-19 is essential for effective control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We determined the prevalence of asymptomatic cases of COVID-19 and characterized the symptoms of patients with mild COVID-19.MethodsStudy participants were recruited from a community facility designated for the isolation of patients without moderate-to-severe symptoms of COVID-19 in South Korea. The prevalence of asymptomatic patients at admission and the detailed symptoms of mild COVID-19 were evaluated through a questionnaire-based survey. Diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed by real-time RT-PCR.ResultsOf the 213 individuals with COVID-19, 41 (19.2%) were asymptomatic until admission. Among the remaining patients with mild COVID-19, the most common symptom was cough (40.1%; 69/172), followed by hyposmia (39.5%; 68/172) and sputum (39.5%; 68/172). Of the 68 individuals with hyposmia, 61 (90%) had accompanying symptoms such as hypogeusia, nasal congestion or rhinorrhoea. Fever (>37.5°C) was only observed in 20 (11.6%) individuals.ConclusionsAs much as one-fifth of individuals with COVID-19 remained asymptomatic from exposure to admission. Hyposmia was quite frequent among individuals with mild COVID-19, but fever was not. Social distancing should be strongly implemented to prevent disease transmission from asymptomatic individuals or those with mild and inconspicuous symptoms.     

Respiratory viral co-infections in patients with COVID-19 and associated outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to critically assess the published literature related to community-acquired viral co-infections and COVID-19 and to evaluate the prevalence, most identified co-pathogens, and relevant risk factors. Furthermore, we aimed to examine the clinical features and outcomes of co-infected compared to mono-infected COVID-19 patients. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library for studies published from 1 November 2019 to 13 August 2021. We included patients of all ages and any COVID-19 severity who were screened for respiratory viral co-infection within 48 h of COVID-19 diagnosis. The main outcome was the proportion of patients with a respiratory viral co-infection. The systematic review was registered to PROSPERO (CRD42021272235). Out of 6053 initially retrieved studies, 59 studies with a total of 16,643 SARS-CoV-2 positive patients were included. The global pooled prevalence was 5.01% (95% CI 3.34%–7.27%; I² = 95%) based on a random-effects model, with Influenza Viruses (1.54%) and Enteroviruses (1.32%) being the most prevalent pathogens. Subgroup analyses showed that co-infection was significantly higher in paediatric (9.39%) than adult (3.51%) patients (p-value = 0.02). Furthermore, co-infected patients were more likely to be dyspnoeic and the odds of fatality (OR = 1.66) were increased. Although a relatively low proportion of COVID-19 patients have a respiratory viral co-infection, our findings show that multiplex viral panel testing may be advisable in patients with compatible symptoms. Indeed, respiratory virus co-infections may be associated with adverse clinical outcomes and therefore have therapeutic and prognostic implications.     

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.     

Low-to-moderate dose corticosteroids treatment in hospitalized adults with COVID-19

ObjectivesUse of corticosteroids is common in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019, but clinical effectiveness is controversial. We aimed to investigate the association of corticosteroids therapy with clinical outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.MethodsIn this single-centre, retrospective cohort study, adult patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 and dead or discharged between 29 December 2019 and 15 February 2020 were studied; 1:1 propensity score matchings were performed between patients with or without corticosteroid treatment. A multivariable COX proportional hazards model was used to estimate the association between corticosteroid treatment and in-hospital mortality by taking corticosteroids as a time-varying covariate.ResultsAmong 646 patients, the in-hospital death rate was higher in 158 patients with corticosteroid administration (72/158, 45.6% vs. 56/488, 11.5%, p < 0.0001). After propensity score matching analysis, no significant differences were observed in in-hospital death between patients with and without corticosteroid treatment (47/124, 37.9% vs. 47/124, 37.9%, p 1.000). When patients received corticosteroids before they required nasal high-flow oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation, the in-hospital death rate was lower than that in patients who were not administered corticosteroids (17/86, 19.8% vs. 26/86, 30.2%, log rank p 0.0102), whereas the time from admission to clinical improvement was longer (13 (IQR 10–17) days vs. 10 (IQR 8–13) days; p < 0.001). Using the Cox proportional hazards regression model accounting for time varying exposures in matched pairs, corticosteroid therapy was not associated with mortality difference (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93–1.03, p 0.4694).DiscussionCorticosteroids use in COVID-19 patients may not be associated with in-hospital mortality.     

Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection: a systematic review

ObjectivesCoronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is a major cause of hospital admission and represents a challenge for patient management during intensive care unit (ICU) stay. We aimed to describe the clinical course and outcomes of COVID-19 pneumonia in critically ill patients.MethodsWe performed a systematic search of peer-reviewed publications in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library up to 15th August 2020. Preprints and reports were also included if they met the inclusion criteria. Study eligibility criteria were full-text prospective, retrospective or registry-based publications describing outcomes in patients admitted to the ICU for COVID-19, using a validated test. Participants were critically ill patients admitted in the ICU with COVID-19 infection.ResultsFrom 32 articles included, a total of 69 093 patients were admitted to the ICU and were evaluated. Most patients included in the studies were male (76 165/128 168, 59%, 26 studies) and the mean patient age was 56 (95%CI 48.5–59.8) years. Studies described high ICU mortality (21 145/65 383, 32.3%, 15 studies). The median length of ICU stay was 9.0 (95%CI 6.5–11.2) days, described in five studies. More than half the patients admitted to the ICU required mechanical ventilation (31 213/53 465, 58%, 23 studies) and among them mortality was very high (27 972/47 632, 59%, six studies). The duration of mechanical ventilation was 8.4 (95%CI 1.6–13.7) days. The main interventions described were the use of non-invasive ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, renal replacement therapy and vasopressors.ConclusionsThis systematic review, including approximately 69 000 ICU patients, demonstrates that COVID-19 infection in critically ill patients is associated with great need for life-sustaining interventions, high mortality, and prolonged length of ICU stay.