-
PloS One 2021The recovery of other pathogens in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported, either at the time of a SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis (co-infection) or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The recovery of other pathogens in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported, either at the time of a SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis (co-infection) or subsequently (superinfection). However, data on the prevalence, microbiology, and outcomes of co-infection and superinfection are limited. The purpose of this study was to examine the occurrence of co-infections and superinfections and their outcomes among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We searched literature databases for studies published from October 1, 2019, through February 8, 2021. We included studies that reported clinical features and outcomes of co-infection or superinfection of SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens in hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients. We followed PRISMA guidelines, and we registered the protocol with PROSPERO as: CRD42020189763.
RESULTS
Of 6639 articles screened, 118 were included in the random effects meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of co-infection was 19% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14%-25%, I2 = 98%) and that of superinfection was 24% (95% CI: 19%-30%). Pooled prevalence of pathogen type stratified by co- or superinfection were: viral co-infections, 10% (95% CI: 6%-14%); viral superinfections, 4% (95% CI: 0%-10%); bacterial co-infections, 8% (95% CI: 5%-11%); bacterial superinfections, 20% (95% CI: 13%-28%); fungal co-infections, 4% (95% CI: 2%-7%); and fungal superinfections, 8% (95% CI: 4%-13%). Patients with a co-infection or superinfection had higher odds of dying than those who only had SARS-CoV-2 infection (odds ratio = 3.31, 95% CI: 1.82-5.99). Compared to those with co-infections, patients with superinfections had a higher prevalence of mechanical ventilation (45% [95% CI: 33%-58%] vs. 10% [95% CI: 5%-16%]), but patients with co-infections had a greater average length of hospital stay than those with superinfections (mean = 29.0 days, standard deviation [SD] = 6.7 vs. mean = 16 days, SD = 6.2, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
Our study showed that as many as 19% of patients with COVID-19 have co-infections and 24% have superinfections. The presence of either co-infection or superinfection was associated with poor outcomes, including increased mortality. Our findings support the need for diagnostic testing to identify and treat co-occurring respiratory infections among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Topics: Bacterial Infections; COVID-19; Coinfection; Hospitalization; Humans; Mycoses; Prevalence; SARS-CoV-2; Superinfection; Treatment Outcome; Virus Diseases
PubMed: 33956882
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251170 -
Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology Mar 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab (TCZ) in treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab (TCZ) in treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
METHODS
The electronic search was made using PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Google scholar to identify the retrospective observational reports. The studies published from 01 January 2020 to 30th October 2020. Participants were hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Interventions included tocilizumab versus placebo/standard of care. The comparison will be between TCZ versus standard of care (SOC)/placebo. Inconsistency between the studies was evaluated with I2 and quality of the evidences were evaluated by Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
RESULTS
Based on the inclusion criteria there were 24 retrospective studies involving 5686 subjects were included. The outcomes of the meta-analysis have revealed that the TCZ has reduced mortality (M-H, RE-OR -0.11(-0.18--0.04) 95% CI, p=0.001, I2 =88%) and increased the incidences of super-infections (M-H, RE-OR 1.49(1.13-1.96) 95% CI, p=0.004, I2=47%). However, there is no significant difference in ICU admissions rate (M-H, RE-OR -0.06(-0.23-0.12), I2=93%), need for mechanical ventilation (M-H, RE-OR of 0.00(-0.06-0.07), I=74%), LOS (IV -2.86(-0.91-3.38), I2=100%), LOS-ICU (IV: -3.93(-12.35-4.48), I2=100%), and incidences of pulmonary thrombosis (MH, RE-OR 1.01 (0.45-2.26), I2=0%) compared to SOC/control.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on cumulative low-to-moderate certainty evidence shows that TCZ could reduce the risk of mortality in hospitalised patients. However, there is no statistically significant difference observed between the TCZ and SOC/control groups in other parameters.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Humans; Retrospective Studies; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34251307
DOI: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/4dg0or -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Dec 2023Varicella is a highly contagious disease caused by the varicella zoster virus (VZV). While the disease is usually mild, severe complications can occur requiring costly...
Varicella is a highly contagious disease caused by the varicella zoster virus (VZV). While the disease is usually mild, severe complications can occur requiring costly hospitalization. A thorough understanding of the healthcare resource use (HCRU) and costs of varicella is needed to inform health-economic models of preventive strategies. A systematic literature review was carried out to retrieve relevant publications between 1999 and 2021, reporting HCRU and cost outcomes for varicella and its complications. Data were extracted and stratified according to pre-specified age groups and complication categories. Costs were re-based to a $US2020 footing using both purchasing power parity and the medical component of consumer price indexes. Data were summarized descriptively due to high heterogeneity in study design and outcome reporting. Forty-four publications fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria of which 28 were conducted in Europe, 6 in Middle East and Asia, 5 in South America, 3 in North America, and 2 in multiple regions. Primary healthcare visits accounted for 30% to 85% of total direct costs. Hospitalization costs varied between $1,308 and $38,268 per episode depending on country, complication type, and length of stay, contributing between 2% and 60% to total direct costs. Indirect costs, mostly driven by workdays lost, accounted for approximately two-thirds of total costs due to varicella. The management of varicella and related complications can lead to substantial HCRU and costs for patients and the healthcare system. Additional research is needed to further characterize the varicella-associated economic burden and its broader impact from a societal standpoint.
Topics: Humans; Chickenpox; Herpesvirus 3, Human; Hospitalization; Communicable Diseases; Delivery of Health Care
PubMed: 37885425
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2023.2266225 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Dec 2022The issue of bacterial infections in COVID-19 patients has received increasing attention among scientists. Antibiotics were widely prescribed during the early phase of... (Review)
Review
The issue of bacterial infections in COVID-19 patients has received increasing attention among scientists. Antibiotics were widely prescribed during the early phase of the pandemic. We performed a literature review to assess the reasons, evidence and practices on the use of antibiotics in COVID-19 in- and outpatients. Published articles providing data on antibiotics use in COVID-19 patients were identified through computerized literature searches on the MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases. Searching the MEDLINE database, the following search terms were adopted: ((antibiotic) AND (COVID-19)). Searching the SCOPUS database, the following search terms were used: ((antibiotic treatment) AND (COVID-19)). The risk of bias in the included studies was not assessed. Both quantitative and qualitative information were summarized by means of textual descriptions. Five-hundred-ninety-three studies were identified, published from January 2020 to 30 October 2022. Thirty-six studies were included in this systematic review. Of the 36 included studies, 32 studies were on the use of antibiotics in COVID-19 inpatients and 4 on antibiotic use in COVID-19 outpatients. Apart from the studies identified and included in the review, the main recommendations on antibiotic treatment from 5 guidelines for the clinical management of COVID-19 were also summarized in a separate paragraph. Antibiotics should not be prescribed during COVID-19 unless there is a strong clinical suspicion of bacterial coinfection or superinfection.
PubMed: 36498781
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11237207 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Jun 2024The issue of bacterial infections in COVID-19 patients has received increasing attention. Scant data are available on the impact of bacterial superinfection and... (Review)
Review
The issue of bacterial infections in COVID-19 patients has received increasing attention. Scant data are available on the impact of bacterial superinfection and antibiotic administration on the outcome of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We conducted a literature review from 1 January 2022 to 31 March 2024 to assess the current burden of bacterial infection and the evidence for antibiotic use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Published articles providing data on antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients were identified through computerized literature searches with the search terms [(antibiotic) AND (COVID-19)] or [(antibiotic treatment) AND (COVID-19)]. PubMed and SCOPUS databases were searched from 1 January 2022 to 31 March 2024. No attempt was made to obtain information about unpublished studies. English language restriction was applied. The quality of the included studies was evaluated by the tool recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Both quantitative and qualitative information were summarized by means of textual descriptions. Five hundred fifty-one studies were identified, and twenty-nine studies were included in this systematic review. Of the 29 included studies, 18 studies were on the prevalence of bacterial infection and antibiotic use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients; 4 studies reported on the efficacy of early antibiotic use in COVID-19; 4 studies were on the use of sepsis biomarkers to improve antibiotic use; 3 studies were on the efficacy of antimicrobial stewardship programs and predictive models among COVID-19-hospitalized patients. The quality of included studies was high in 35% and medium in 62%. High rates of hospital-acquired infections were reported among COVID-19 patients, ranging between 7.5 and 37.7%. A high antibiotic resistance rate was reported among COVID-19 patients developing hospital-acquired infections, with a high in-hospital mortality rate. The studies evaluating multi-faceted antimicrobial stewardship interventions reported efficacy in decreasing antibiotic consumption and lower in-hospital mortality.
PubMed: 38927211
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics13060545 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2021Corticosteroids are a common option used in sepsis treatment. However, the efficacy and potential risk of corticosteroids in septic patients have not been well assessed.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Corticosteroids are a common option used in sepsis treatment. However, the efficacy and potential risk of corticosteroids in septic patients have not been well assessed. This review was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched from inception to March 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of corticosteroids on patients with sepsis were included. The quality of outcomes in the included articles was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. The data were pooled by using risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD). The random-effects model was used to evaluate the pooled MD or RR and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Fifty RCTs that included 12,304 patients with sepsis were identified. Corticosteroids were not associated with the mortality in 28-day (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87-1.02; evidence rank, moderate) and long-term mortality (>60 days) (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-1.05) in patients with sepsis (evidence rank, low). However, corticosteroids may exert a significant effect on the mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU) (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.83-0.97), in-hospital (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.82-0.99; evidence rank, moderate) in patients with sepsis or septic shock (evidence rank, low). Furthermore, corticosteroids probably achieved a tiny reduction in the length of hospital stay and ICU. Corticosteroids were associated with a higher risk of hypernatremia and hyperglycemia; furthermore, they appear to have no significant effect on superinfection and gastroduodenal bleeding.
CONCLUSIONS
Corticosteroids had no significant effect on the 28-day and long-term mortality; however, they decreased the ICU and hospital mortality. The findings suggest that the clinical corticosteroids may be an effective therapy for patients with sepsis during the short time.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://inplasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/INPLASY-Protocol-1074-4.pdf.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Sepsis
PubMed: 34484209
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.709155 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017The pattern of infections among neutropenic patients with cancer has shifted in the last decades to a predominance of gram-positive infections. Some of these... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The pattern of infections among neutropenic patients with cancer has shifted in the last decades to a predominance of gram-positive infections. Some of these gram-positive bacteria are increasingly resistant to beta-lactams and necessitate specific antibiotic treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of empirical anti-gram-positive (antiGP) antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenic patients with cancer in terms of mortality and treatment failure. To assess the rate of resistance development, further infections and adverse events associated with additional antiGP treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
For the review update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE (May 2012 to 2017), Embase (May 2012 to 2017), LILACS (2012 to 2017), conference proceedings, ClinicalTrials.gov trial registry, and the references of the included studies. We contacted the first authors of all included and potentially relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one antibiotic regimen versus the same regimen with the addition of an antiGP antibiotic for the treatment of febrile neutropenic patients with cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted all data. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A random-effects model was used for all comparisons showing substantial heterogeneity (I > 50%). Outcomes were extracted by intention-to-treat and the analysis was patient-based whenever possible.
MAIN RESULTS
Fourteen trials and 2782 patients or episodes were included. Empirical antiGP antibiotics were tested at the onset of treatment in 12 studies, and for persistent fever in two studies. The antiGP treatment was a glycopeptide in nine trials. Eight studies were assessed in the overall mortality comparison and no significant difference was seen between the comparator arms, RR of 0.90 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.25; 8 studies, 1242 patients; moderate-quality data). Eleven trials assessed failure, including modifications as failures, while seven assessed overall failure disregarding treatment modifications. Failure with modifications was reduced, RR of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.79; 11 studies, 2169 patients; very low-quality data), while overall failure was the same, RR of 1.00 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.27; 7 studies, 943 patients; low-quality data). Sensitivity analysis for allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data did not change the results. Failure among patients with gram-positive infections was reduced with antiGP treatment, RR of 0.56 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.84, 5 studies, 175 patients), although, mortality among these patients was not changed.Data regarding other patient subgroups likely to benefit from antiGP treatment were not available. Glycopeptides did not increase fungal superinfection rates and were associated with a reduction in documented gram-positive superinfections. Resistant colonisation was not documented in the studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on very low- or low-quality evidence using the GRADE approach and overall low risk of bias, the current evidence shows that the empirical routine addition of antiGP treatment, namely glycopeptides, does not improve the outcomes of febrile neutropenic patients with cancer.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Febrile Neutropenia; Glycopeptides; Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections; Humans; Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 28577308
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003914.pub4 -
Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.) May 2024Studies have suggested that patients with chronic hepatitis B, either co- or superinfected, have more aggressive liver disease progression than those with the HDV. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Studies have suggested that patients with chronic hepatitis B, either co- or superinfected, have more aggressive liver disease progression than those with the HDV. This systematic literature review and meta-analysis examined whether HDV RNA status is associated with increased risk of advanced liver disease events in patients who are HBsAg and HDV antibody positive.
APPROACH AND RESULTS
A total of 12 publications were included. Relative rates of progression to advanced liver disease event for HDV RNA+/detectable versus HDV RNA-/undetectable were extracted for analysis. Reported OR and HRs with 95% CI were pooled using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random-effects models. The presence of HDV RNA+ was associated with an increased risk of any advanced liver disease event [random effect (95% CI): risk ratio: 1.48 (0.93, 2.33); HR: 2.62 (1.55, 4.44)]. When compared to the patients with HDV RNA- status, HDV RNA+ was associated with a significantly higher risk of progressing to compensated cirrhosis [risk ratio: 1.74 (1.24, 2.45)] decompensated cirrhosis [HR: 3.82 (1.60, 9.10)], HCC [HR: 2.97 (1.87, 4.70)], liver transplantation [HR: 7.07 (1.61, 30.99)], and liver-related mortality [HR: 3.78 (2.18, 6.56)].
CONCLUSIONS
The patients with HDV RNA+ status have a significantly greater risk of liver disease progression than the patients who are HDV RNA-. These findings highlight the need for improved HDV screening and linkage to treatment to reduce the risk of liver-related morbidity and mortality.
Topics: Humans; Hepatitis Delta Virus; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Liver Neoplasms; Hepatitis B Surface Antigens; Liver Cirrhosis; Morbidity; RNA, Viral; Disease Progression; Hepatitis B virus
PubMed: 37870278
DOI: 10.1097/HEP.0000000000000642 -
Journal of Fungi (Basel, Switzerland) May 2023This study systematically reviewed fungal-bacterial co-infections and super-infections among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. A PRISMA systematic search was conducted. On... (Review)
Review
This study systematically reviewed fungal-bacterial co-infections and super-infections among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. A PRISMA systematic search was conducted. On September 2022, Medline, PubMed, Google Scholar, PsychINFO, Wiley Online Library, NATURE, and CINAHL databases were searched for all relevant articles published in English. All articles that exclusively reported the presence of fungal-bacterial co-infections and super-infections among hospitalized COVID-19 patients were included. Seven databases produced 6937 articles as a result of the literature search. Twenty-four articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. The total number of samples across the studies was 10,834, with a total of 1243 (11.5%) patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Of these patients, 535 underwent mechanical ventilation (4.9%), 2386 (22.0%) were male, and 597 (5.5%) died. Furthermore, hospitalized COVID-19 patients have a somewhat high rate (23.5%) of fungal-bacterial co-infections and super-infections. Moreover, for SARS-CoV-2 patients who have a chest X-ray that suggests a bacterial infection, who require immediate ICU admission, or who have a seriously immunocompromised condition, empiric antibiotic therapy should be taken into consideration. Additionally, the prevalence of co-infections and super-infections among hospitalized COVID-19 patients may have an impact on diagnosis and treatment. It is crucial to check for fungal and bacterial co-infections and super-infections in COVID-19 patients.
PubMed: 37367534
DOI: 10.3390/jof9060598 -
Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) Aug 2022Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent for the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, has sparked a medical emergency... (Review)
Review
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent for the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, has sparked a medical emergency worldwide. With the rise in COVID-19 infections and an eventual increase in hospitalized critically ill patients, a trend of bacterial, fungal, and viral superinfection has been noted. One important agent of co-infection identified is . Due to its multidrug-resistant nature and easy transmissibility, is difficult to manage in COVID-positive patients. Patients with comorbidities, immunosuppressive states, intubated and on ventilators are more likely to contract the fungal infection. Therefore, it is essential to the first screen, diagnose, and isolate patients with infection and manage and treat them while preventing the spread of the disease. Failure to recognize and prevent its spread may lead to an eventual epidemic or even a pandemic during the current COVID-pandemic, which the exhausted healthcare system can most definitely not handle. This systematic review investigates the prevalence of , its pathophysiology, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.
PubMed: 36135214
DOI: 10.3390/diseases10030058