-
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Sep 2020Characterization of pediatric coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is necessary to control the pandemic, as asymptomatic or mildly infected children may act as carriers.... (Review)
Review
Characterization of pediatric coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is necessary to control the pandemic, as asymptomatic or mildly infected children may act as carriers. To date, there are limited reports describing differences in clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics between asymptomatic and symptomatic infection, and between younger and older pediatric patients. The objective of this study is to compare characteristics among: (1) asymptomatic versus symptomatic and (2) less than 10 versus greater or equal to 10 years old pediatric COVID-19 patients. We searched for all terms related to pediatric COVID-19 in electronic databases (Embase, Medline, PubMed, and Web of Science) for articles from January 2020. This protocol followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Eligible study designs included case reports and series, while we excluded comments/letters, reviews, and literature not written in English. Initially, 817 articles were identified. Forty-three articles encompassing 158 confirmed pediatric COVID-19 cases were included in the final analyses. Lymphocytosis and high CRP were associated with symptomatic infection. Abnormal chest CT more accurately detected asymptomatic COVID-19 in older patients than in younger ones, but clinical characteristics were similar between older and younger patients. Chest CT scan findings are untrustworthy in younger children with COVID-19 as compared with clinical findings, or significant differences in findings between asymptomatic to symptomatic children. Further studies evaluating pediatric COVID-19 could contribute to potential therapeutic interventions and preventive strategies to limit spreading.
Topics: Adolescent; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Child; Child, Preschool; Coronavirus Infections; Female; Humans; Lung; Male; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 32942705
DOI: 10.3390/medicina56090474 -
Journal of Medical Virology Sep 2022To provide a comparative meta-analysis and systematic review of the risk and clinical outcomes of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection between fully vaccinated and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
To provide a comparative meta-analysis and systematic review of the risk and clinical outcomes of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Eighteen studies of COVID-19 infections in fully vaccinated ("breakthrough infections") and unvaccinated individuals were reviewed from Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The meta-analysis examined the summary effects and between-study heterogeneity regarding differences in the risk of infection, hospitalization, treatments, and mortality between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. he overall risk of infection was lower for the fully vaccinated compared to that of the unvaccinated (relative risk [RR] 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.19-0.21), especially for variants other than Delta (Delta: RR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.13-0.65; other variants: RR 0.06, 95% CI: 0.04-0.08). The risk of asymptomatic infection was not statistically significantly different between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated (RR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.27-1.19). There were neither statistically significant differences in risk of hospitalization (RR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.38-2.93), invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 1.65, 95% CI: 0.90-3.06), or mortality (RR 1.19, 95% CI: 0.79-1.78). Conversely, the risk of supplemental oxygen during hospitalization was significantly higher for the unvaccinated (RR 1.40, 95% CI: 1.08-1.82). Unvaccinated people were more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection than fully vaccinated for all variants. Once infected, there were no statistically significant differences in the risk of hospitalization, invasive mechanical ventilation, or mortality. Still, unvaccinated showed an increased need for oxygen supplementation. Further prospective analysis, including patients' risk factors, COVID-19 variants, and the utilized treatment strategies, would be warranted.
Topics: COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Coronavirus Infections; Humans; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 35588301
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.27871 -
Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease May 2019is a genus of obligate parasites belonging to the Pentastomida subclass that was first described as a cause of human disease in 1847. Human infection by is rare and... (Review)
Review
is a genus of obligate parasites belonging to the Pentastomida subclass that was first described as a cause of human disease in 1847. Human infection by is rare and not widely known. These parasites are transmitted to humans by handling or eating undercooked meat from infected snakes, which are the definitive hosts, or oral uptake of environmental ova. The aim of this systematic review was to record all available evidence regarding infections by in humans. A systematic review of PubMed (through 21 December 2018) for studies providing epidemiological, clinical, microbiological, as well as treatment data and outcomes of infections was conducted. A total of 26 studies, containing data of 40 patients, were eventually included in the analysis. The most common sites of infection were the peritoneal cavity, the liver, the lower respiratory and the abdominal tract. The commonest infecting species was and most patients were asymptomatic; however, when symptoms occurred, the commonest was abdominal pain, even though unusual presentations occurred, such as hepatic encephalopathy or neurologic symptoms. Most cases were diagnosed at surgery or by imaging, and most patients were not treated. Mortality was low, but the majority of the cases with ocular infection lead to permanent loss of vision.
PubMed: 31100831
DOI: 10.3390/tropicalmed4020080 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Nov 2016Most European and North American clinical practice guidelines recommend screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) as a routine pregnancy test. Antibiotic treatment of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Most European and North American clinical practice guidelines recommend screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) as a routine pregnancy test. Antibiotic treatment of ASB in pregnant women is supposed to reduce maternal upper urinary tract infections (upper UTIs) and preterm labour. However, most studies supporting the treatment of ASB were conducted in the 1950s to 1980s. Because of subsequent changes in treatment options for ASB and UTI, the applicability of findings from these studies has come into question. Our systematic review had three objectives: firstly, to assess the patient-relevant benefits and harms of screening for ASB versus no screening; secondly, to compare the benefits and harms of different screening strategies; and thirdly, in case no reliable evidence on the overarching screening question was identified, to determine the benefits and harms of treatment of ASB.
METHODS
We systematically searched several bibliographic databases, trial registries, and other sources (up to 02/2016) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised trials. Two authors independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles and assessed the risk of bias of the studies included. As meta-analyses were not possible, we summarised the results qualitatively.
RESULTS
We did not identify any eligible studies that investigated the benefits and harms of screening for ASB versus no screening or that compared different screening strategies. We identified four RCTs comparing antibiotics with no treatment or placebo in 454 pregnant women with ASB. The results of 2 studies published in the 1960s showed a statistically significant reduction in rates of pyelonephritis (odds ratio [OR] = 0.21, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.07-0.59) and lower UTI (OR = 0.10, 95 % CI 0.03-0.35) in women treated with antibiotics. By contrast, event rates reported by a recent study were not statistically significantly different, neither regarding pyelonephritis (0 % vs. 2.2 %; OR = 0.37, CI 0.01-9.25, p = 0.515) nor regarding lower UTI during pregnancy (10 % vs. 18 %; Peto odds ratio [POR] = 0.53, CI 0.16-1.79, p = 0.357). Data were insufficient to determine the risk of harms. As three of the four studies were conducted several decades ago and have serious methodological shortcomings, the applicability of their findings to current health care settings is likely to be low. The recent high-quality RCT was stopped early due to a very low number of primary outcome events, a composite of preterm delivery and pyelonephritis. Therefore, the results did not show a benefit of treating ASB.
CONCLUSIONS
To date, no reliable evidence supports routine screening for ASB in pregnant women.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Asymptomatic Infections; Bacteriuria; Female; Humans; Obstetric Labor, Premature; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Prenatal Diagnosis
PubMed: 27806709
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-016-1128-0 -
The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal Feb 2017Noroviruses are increasingly recognized as a major cause of sporadic and epidemic acute gastroenteritis (AGE). Although there have been multiple studies published on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Noroviruses are increasingly recognized as a major cause of sporadic and epidemic acute gastroenteritis (AGE). Although there have been multiple studies published on norovirus epidemiology in Latin America, no comprehensive assessment of the role of norovirus has been conducted in the region. We aim to estimate the role of norovirus in the Latin American region through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature.
METHODS
We carried out a literature search in MEDLINE, SciELO and LILACS. We included papers that provided information on the prevalence or incidence of norovirus (including seroprevalence studies and outbreaks), with a recruitment and/or follow-up period of at least 12 months and where the diagnosis of norovirus was confirmed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. The data were pooled for meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of norovirus AGE and norovirus asymptomatic infection with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Thirty-eight studies were included in the review. Overall, the prevalence of norovirus among AGE cases was 15% (95% CI: 13-18). By location, it was 15% in the community (95% CI: 11%-21%), 14% in outpatient settings (95% CI: 10%-19%) and 16% in hospital locations (95% CI: 12%-21%). The prevalence of norovirus among asymptomatic subjects was 8% (95% CI: 4-13). Norovirus GII.4 strains were associated with 37%-100% of norovirus AGE cases, but only 7% of norovirus asymptomatic detections.
CONCLUSIONS
Noroviruses are associated with almost 1 out of every 6 hospitalizations because of acute diarrhea in children younger than 5 years of age in Latin America.
Topics: Caliciviridae Infections; Child; Child, Preschool; Diarrhea; Disease Outbreaks; Gastroenteritis; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Latin America; Norovirus; Seroepidemiologic Studies
PubMed: 27755462
DOI: 10.1097/INF.0000000000001369 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Dec 2023Asymptomatic malaria infections are highly prevalent in endemic areas. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Asymptomatic malaria infections are highly prevalent in endemic areas.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of malaria parasites in migrants screened in non-endemic areas.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE-Ovid, EMBASE, Web of Science, Global Health, Lilacs, Cochrane, and MedRxiv.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Cross-sectional studies and observational prospective or retrospective cohort studies conducted in Europe, USA, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand regardless of language or publication status. Studies should include prevalence data on malaria in migrants that were recruited through a systematic screening approach. We excluded studies where people were tested because of malaria symptoms.
PARTICIPANTS
Migrant individuals exposed to malaria infection ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: A standardized and validated appraisal instrument was used for studies reporting prevalence data (Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis).
METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS
Pooled estimates of the parasite prevalence by PCR, microscopy, and rapid diagnostic test (RDT) were calculated with a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was explored by stratification by age, region of origin, period of study, and quality of studies.
RESULTS
Of 1819 studies retrieved, 23 studies were included with in total 4203 participant PCR data, 3186 microscopy and 4698 RDT data, respectively. Migrants from sub-Saharan Africa had a malaria parasite prevalence of 8.3% (95% CI 5.1-12.2) by PCR, 4.3% (1.5-8.2) by RDT, and 3.1% (0.7-6.8) by microscopy. For migrants from Asia and Latin America, the prevalence with PCR was 0% (0.0-0.08) and 0.4% (0.0-1.8), respectively. Migrants from the Central African Region had the highest PCR prevalence (9.3% [6.0-13.0]), followed by West African migrants (2.0% [0.0-7.7]). Restricting the analysis to sub-Saharan Africa migrants arriving to the host country within the previous year, the PCR-based prevalence was 11.6% (6.9-17.4).
CONCLUSION
We provide estimates on the malaria parasite prevalence in migrants in non-endemic setting. Despite heterogeneity between settings, these findings can contribute to inform screening strategies and guidelines targeting malaria in migrants.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Parasites; Prevalence; Transients and Migrants; Cross-Sectional Studies; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Malaria; Asymptomatic Infections
PubMed: 37739263
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2023.09.010 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021The effect of antibiotics with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties are being investigated in clinical trials as treatment for COVID-19. The use of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The effect of antibiotics with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties are being investigated in clinical trials as treatment for COVID-19. The use of antibiotics follows the intention-to-treat the viral disease and not primarily to treat bacterial co-infections of individuals with COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of antibiotics as anti-viral treatments for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics compared to each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or any other active intervention with proven efficacy for treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 14 June 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs were included that compared antibiotics with each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or another proven intervention, for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, treated in the in- or outpatient settings. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing antibiotics to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: 1. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as new need for intubation or death, clinical improvement defined as being discharged alive, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias; 2. to treat outpatients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as hospital admission or death, clinical improvement defined as symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 studies with 11,281 participants with an average age of 54 years investigating antibiotics compared to placebo, standard of care alone or another antibiotic. No study was found comparing antibiotics to an intervention with proven efficacy. All studies investigated azithromycin, two studies investigated other antibiotics compared to azithromycin. Seven studies investigated inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and four investigated mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. Eight studies had an open-label design, two were blinded with a placebo control, and one did not report on blinding. We identified 19 ongoing and 15 studies awaiting classification pending publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Of the 30 study results contributing to primary outcomes by included studies, 17 were assessed as overall low risk and 13 as some concerns of bias. Only studies investigating azithromycin reported data eligible for the prioritised primary outcomes. Azithromycin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in inpatients We are very certain that azithromycin has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 compared to standard of care alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.06; 8600 participants; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). Azithromycin probably has little or no effect on clinical worsening or death at day 28 (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; 7311 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), on clinical improvement at day 28 (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 8172 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), on serious adverse events during the study period (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.40; 794 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiac arrhythmias during the study period (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; 7865 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard of care alone. Azithromycin may increase any adverse events slightly during the study period (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.57; 355 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) compared to standard of care alone. No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in outpatients Azithromycin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care alone on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 1.00 ; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.69; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.94 ; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.56; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), and on symptom resolution at day 14 (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 138 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether azithromycin increases or reduces serious adverse events compared to placebo or standard of care alone (0 participants experienced serious adverse events; 454 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on adverse events, cardiac arrhythmias during the study period or quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to any other antibiotics in inpatients and outpatients One study compared azithromycin to lincomycin in inpatients, but did not report any primary outcome. Another study compared azithromycin to clarithromycin in outpatients, but did not report any relevant outcome for this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are certain that risk of death in hospitalised COVID-19 patients is not reduced by treatment with azithromycin after 28 days. Further, based on moderate-certainty evidence, patients in the inpatient setting with moderate and severe disease probably do not benefit from azithromycin used as potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment for COVID-19 regarding clinical worsening or improvement. For the outpatient setting, there is currently low-certainty evidence that azithromycin may have no beneficial effect for COVID-19 individuals. There is no evidence from RCTs available for other antibiotics as antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment of COVID-19. With accordance to the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials to fill this evidence gap. However, in relation to the evidence for azithromycin and in the context of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics should not be used for treatment of COVID-19 outside well-designed RCTs.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; COVID-19; Cause of Death; Humans; Middle Aged; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34679203
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015025 -
Vaccines Sep 2021This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccines according to vaccine... (Review)
Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccines according to vaccine platform and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infection severity. Articles published between 24 January 2020 and 30 May 2021 were retrieved via a PubMed and EMBASE search. A total of 12 reports on phase-3 clinical trials and observational studies of COVID-19 vaccines were included in the review. In terms of vaccine safety, mRNA vaccines showed more relevance to serious adverse events than viral vector and inactivated vaccines, but no solid evidence indicated that COVID-19 vaccines directly caused serious adverse events. Serious metabolic, musculoskeletal, immune-system, and renal disorders were more common among inactivated vaccine recipients, and serious gastrointestinal complications and infections were more common among viral vector and inactivated vaccine recipients. The occurrence of serious vessel disorders was more frequent in mRNA vaccines. In terms of efficacy, two mRNA vaccine doses conferred a lesser risk of SARS-COV-2 infection (odds ratio: 0.05; 95% confidence interval: 0.02-0.13) than did vaccination with viral vector and inactivated vaccines. All vaccines protected more against symptomatic than asymptomatic cases (risk ratio, 0.11 vs. 0.34), but reduced the risk of severe SARS-COV-2 infection. The COVID-19 vaccines assessed in this study are sufficiently safe and effective. The results indicate that two mRNA vaccine doses prevent SARS-COV-2 infection most effectively, but further research is needed due to the high degree of heterogeneity among studies in this sample. Interventions should be implemented continuously to reduce the risks of infection after one vaccine dose and asymptomatic infection.
PubMed: 34579226
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines9090989 -
Sexually Transmitted Infections May 2022To examine associations between infection during pregnancy and adverse outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To examine associations between infection during pregnancy and adverse outcomes.
METHODS
We did a systematic review of observational studies. We searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and CINAHL up to 11 August 2021. Studies were included if they compared preterm birth, spontaneous abortion, premature rupture of membranes, low birth weight or perinatal death between women with and without . Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and extracted data. We used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate summary ORs and adjusted ORs, with 95% CIs, where appropriate. Risk of bias was assessed using established checklists.
RESULTS
We identified 116 records and included 10 studies. Women with were more likely to experience preterm birth in univariable analyses (summary unadjusted OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.81, I=0%, 7 studies). The combined adjusted OR was 2.34 (95% CI 1.17 to 4.71, I=0%, 2 studies). For spontaneous abortion, the summary unadjusted OR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.89, I=0%, 6 studies). The adjusted OR in one case-control study was 0.9 (95% CI 0.2 to 3.8). Unadjusted ORs for premature rupture of membranes were 7.62 (95% CI 0.40 to 145.86, 1 study) and for low birth weight 1.07 (95% CI 0.02 to 10.39, 1 study). For perinatal death, the unadjusted OR was 1.07 (95% CI 0.49 to 2.36) in one case-control and 38.42 (95% CI 1.45 to 1021.43) in one cohort study. These two ORs were not combined, owing to heterogeneity. The greatest risk of bias was the failure in most studies to control for confounding.
CONCLUSION
might be associated with an increased risk of preterm birth. Further prospective studies, with adequate control for confounding, are needed to understand the role of in adverse pregnancy outcomes. There is insufficient evidence to indicate routine testing and treatment of asymptomatic in pregnancy.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42016050962.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Case-Control Studies; Cohort Studies; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Mycoplasma Infections; Mycoplasma genitalium; Perinatal Death; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 35351816
DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2021-055352 -
PloS One 2015HPV is the most prevalent sexually transmitted infection and its effect in cancer induction is well documented. HPV infections are mostly asymptomatic, but it is unclear... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
HPV is the most prevalent sexually transmitted infection and its effect in cancer induction is well documented. HPV infections are mostly asymptomatic, but it is unclear whether HPV infections can result in alterations of reproductive health.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the relationship between human papillomavirus infections and reproductive health in both men and women.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed in PubMed and ScienceDirect data bases from January 1994 through August 2014.
RESULTS
HPV infections are shown to be significantly associated to many adverse effects in the reproductive function. These adverse effects were reported in different levels from cells production to pregnancy and may be related to the infecting genotype.
CONCLUSIONS
It appears from this study that HPV detection and genotyping could be of great value in infertility diagnosis at least in idiopathic infertility cases. Like for the risk of carcinogenesis, another classification of HPV regarding the risk of fertility alteration may be considered after deep investigations.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Female; Fertility; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Infertility, Female; Male; Papillomaviridae; Papillomavirus Infections; Pregnancy; Reproductive Health; Semen; Semen Analysis; Sexually Transmitted Diseases
PubMed: 25992782
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126936