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.     

A systematic review of asymptomatic infections with COVID-19

Since the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in late December 2019, it has brought significant harm and challenges to over 200 countries and regions around the world. However, there is increasing evidence that many patients with COVID-19 are asymptomatic or have only mild symptoms, but they are able to transmit the virus to others. There are difficulties in screening for asymptomatic infections, which makes it more difficult for national prevention and control of this epidemic. This article reviews the characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of asymptomatic infections with COVID-19, hoping it would be helpful for early prevention and control of this severe public health threat worldwide.     

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.     

The Phone: Communication in the Age of COVID-19

In April, as the COVID-19 outbreak intensified in New York City, a radiation oncology was redeployed to an internal medicine service. In this submission, he discusses his experience updating families on the statuses of their loved ones over the phone during the outbreak.     

Underrepresentation of older adults in clinical trials on COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review

During the COVID-19 pandemic older subjects have been disproportionately affected by the disease. Vaccination is a fundamental intervention to prevent the negative consequences of COVID-19, but it is not known if the needs and vulnerabilities of older people are adequately addressed by their inclusion in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of vaccines for COVID-19. Given this background, we aimed to evaluate if current and ongoing phase II-III RCTs evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines included a representative sample of older people. A systematic literature search in PubMed and Clinicaltrials.gov was performed until May 01st, 2021. Among 474 abstracts initially retrieved, 20 RCTs (ten already published, ten ongoing) were included. In the ten studies already published, the mean age of participants was 45.2 ± 11.9 years and only 9.83% of the participants were more than 65 years, 1.66% more than 75 years and less than 1% (0.55%) more than 85 years. In the ten ongoing RCTs, many of the studies aimed at including participants older than 18 years, with one study including participants between 18 and 84 years, and two between 21 and 100 years. In conclusion, our systematic review demonstrates that in published and ongoing phase II-III randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines only a tiny fraction of the most vulnerable group of older people was included, although they clearly were the first population that had to be vaccinated.     

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.     

Predictors of mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Mortality rates of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) continue to rise across the world. Information regarding the predictors of mortality in patients with COVID-19 remains scarce. Herein, we performed a systematic review of published articles, from 1 January to 24 April 2020, to evaluate the risk factors associated with mortality in COVID-19. Two investigators independently searched the articles and collected the data, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We looked for associations between mortality and patient characteristics, comorbidities, and laboratory abnormalities. A total of 14 studies documenting the outcomes of 4659 patients were included. The presence of comorbidities such as hypertension (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-3.1; P < .00001), coronary heart disease (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 2.1-6.9; P < .00001), and diabetes (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.7-2.3; P < .00001) were associated with significantly higher risk of death amongst patients with COVID-19. Those who died, compared with those who survived, differed on multiple biomarkers on admission including elevated levels of cardiac troponin (+44.2 ng/L, 95% CI, 19.0-69.4; P = .0006); C-reactive protein (+66.3 µg/mL, 95% CI, 46.7-85.9; P < .00001); interleukin-6 (+4.6 ng/mL, 95% CI, 3.6-5.6; P < .00001); D-dimer (+4.6 µg/mL, 95% CI, 2.8-6.4; P < .00001); creatinine (+15.3 µmol/L, 95% CI, 6.2-24.3; P = .001); and alanine transaminase (+5.7 U/L, 95% CI, 2.6-8.8; P = .0003); as well as decreased levels of albumin (−3.7 g/L, 95% CI, −5.3 to −2.1; P < .00001). Individuals with underlying cardiometabolic disease and that present with evidence for acute inflammation and end-organ damage are at higher risk of mortality due to COVID-19 infection and should be managed with greater intensity.     

A cluster of health care workers with COVID-19 pneumonia caused by SARS-CoV-2

BackgroundThe current outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Wuhan, Hubei, China, spreads across national and international borders.MethodsWe prospectively collected medical records of 14 health care workers (HCWs) who were infected with SARS-CoV-2, in neurosurgery department of Wuhan Union Hospital, China.ResultsAmong the 14 HCWs, 12 were conformed cases, the other 2 were suspected cases. Most of them were either exposed to the two index patients or infected coworkers, without knowing they were COVID-19 patients. There were 4 male and 10 female infected HCWs in this cohort, whose mean age was 36 years (SD, 6 years). The main symptoms included myalgia or fatigue (100%), fever (86%) and dry cough (71%). On admission, 79% of infected HCWs showed leucopenia and 43% lymphopenia. Reduced complement C3 could be seen in 57% of the infected HCWs and IL-6 was significantly elevated in 86% of them. The proportion of lymphocytes subsets, concentrations of immunoglobulins, complement C4, IL-2, IL-4, IL-10, TNF-α and IFN-γ were within normal range in these 14 infected HCWs. The most frequent findings on pulmonary computed tomographic images were bilateral multifocal ground-glass opacifications (86%).ConclusionsHuman-to-human transmission of COVID-19 pneumonia has occurred among HCWs, and most of these infected HCWs with confirmed COVID-19 are mild cases. Our data suggest that in the epidemic area of COVID-19, stringent and urgent surveillance and infection-control measures should be implemented to protect doctors and nurses from COVID-19 infection.     

Chest CT abnormalities in COVID-19: a systematic review

Computed tomography (CT) of the chest is one of the main diagnositic tools for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. To document the chest CT findings in patients with confirmed COVID-19 and their association with the clinical severity, we searched related literatures through PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science (inception to May 4, 2020) and reviewed reference lists of previous systematic reviews. A total of 31 case reports (3768 patients) on CT findings of COVID-19 were included. The most common comorbid conditions were hypertension (18.4%) and diabetes mellitus (8.3%). The most common symptom was fever (78.7%), followed by cough (60.2%). It took an average of 5.6 days from symptom onset to admission. The most common chest CT finding was vascular enlargement (84.8%), followed by ground-glass opacity (GGO) (60.1%), air-bronchogram (47.8%), and consolidation (41.4%). Most lung lesions were located in the lung periphery (72.2%) and involved bilateral lung (76%). Most patients showed normal range of laboratory findings such as white blood cell count (96.4%) and lymphocyte (87.2%). Compared to previous published meta-analyses, our study is the first to summarize the different radiologic characteristics of chest CT in a total of 3768 COVID-19 patients by compiling case series studies. A comprehensive diagnostic approach should be adopted for patients with known COVID-19, suspected cases, and for exposed individuals.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Prevalence of unwillingness and uncertainty to vaccinate against COVID-19 in older people: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been shown to have more severe health outcomes in older people specifically in relation to mortality and disability. Vaccination seems to be efficacious and safe for preventing the negative consequences of COVID-19, but vaccine hesitancy seems to be high in older adults. We therefore aimed to investigate the prevalence of unwillingness and the uncertainty to vaccinate against COVID-19 in older people and the factors that can be associated with the unwillingness to vaccinate. For this work, we searched several databases until 18th June 2021 for studies reporting the prevalence of unwillingness and the uncertainty to vaccinate against COVID-19 in people aged >60 years. A meta-analysis of the prevalence, with the correspondent 95% confidence intervals (CIs), was proposed. Factors that can be associated with the unwillingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 were explored through multivariable analyses and reported as odds ratios (ORs). Among 662 papers initially screened, we included 15 studies for a total of 9753 older adults. The prevalence of unwillingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 in older people was 27.03% (95%CI: 15.10–38.95%), whilst the correspondent figure of uncertainty was 19.33% (95%CI: 12.28–26.39). The risk of being unvaccinated was significantly higher in Hispanics (OR=1.197; 95%CI: 1.010–1.418) and in case of low education (OR=1.678; 95%CI: 1.170–2.408) and low income (OR=1.287; 95%CI: 1.127–1.469). In conclusion, the hesitancy for COVID-19 vaccination is a relevant problem in older people, particularly in those with a low income, a low level of education, and in Hispanics living in the United States.     

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.     

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThe benefits of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remain debated with the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization providing contradictory recommendations for and against use.ObjectivesTo evaluate the role of remdesivir for hospitalized inpatients as a function of oxygen requirements.Data sourcesBeginning with our prior systematic review, we searched MEDLINE using PubMed from 15 January 2021 through 5 May 2022.Study eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials; all languages.ParticipantsAll hospitalized adults with COVID-19.InterventionsRemdesivir, in comparison to either placebo, or standard of care.Assessment of risk of biasWe used the ROB-2 criteria.Methods of data synthesisThe primary outcome was mortality, stratified by oxygen use (none, supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation, and mechanical ventilation). We conducted a frequentist random effects meta-analysis on the risk ratio scale and, to contextualize the probabilistic benefits, we also performed a Bayesian random effects meta-analysis on the risk difference scale. A ≥1% absolute risk reduction was considered clinically important.ResultsWe identified eight randomized trials, totaling 10 751 participants. The risk ratio for mortality comparing remdesivir vs. control was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.5–1.19) in the patients who did not require supplemental oxygen; 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79–0.99) for nonventilated patients requiring oxygen; and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.88–1.31) in the setting of mechanical ventilation. Using neutral priors, the probabilities that remdesivir reduces mortality were 76.8%, 93.8%, and 14.7%, respectively. The probability that remdesivir reduced mortality by ≥ 1% was 77.4% for nonventilated patients requiring oxygen.ConclusionsBased on this meta-analysis, there is a high probability that remdesivir reduces mortality for nonventilated patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen therapy. Treatment guidelines should be re-evaluated.