-
Immunity, Inflammation and Disease Jan 2023Infections with fungi, such as Aspergillus species, have been found as common complications of viral pneumonia. This study aims to determine the risk factors of fungal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Infections with fungi, such as Aspergillus species, have been found as common complications of viral pneumonia. This study aims to determine the risk factors of fungal superinfections in viral pneumonia patients using meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to determine the risk factors of fungal infection s in viral pneumonia patients using meta-analysis.
METHODS
We reviewed primary literature about fungal infection in viral pneumonia patients published between January 1, 2010 and September 30, 2020, in the Chinese Biomedical Literature, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang (China), Cochrane Central Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. These studies were subjected to an array of statistical analyses, including risk of bias and sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS
In this study, we found a statistically significant difference in the incidence of fungal infections in viral pneumonia patients that received corticosteroid treatment as compared to those without corticosteroid treatment (p < .00001). Additionally, regarding the severity of fungal infections, we observed significant higher incidence of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) in patients with high Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores (p < .001), tumors (p = .005), or immunocompromised patients (p < .0001).
CONCLUSIONS
Our research shows that corticosteroid treatment was an important risk factor for the development of fungal infection in patients with viral pneumonia. High APACHE II scores, tumors, and immunocompromised condition are also important risk factors of developing IPA. The diagnosis of fungal infection in viral pneumonia patients can be facilitated by early serum galactomannan (GM) testing, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid Aspergillus antigen testing, culture, and biopsy.
Topics: Humans; Superinfection; Sensitivity and Specificity; Aspergillus; Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis; Risk Factors; Neoplasms
PubMed: 36705416
DOI: 10.1002/iid3.760 -
The Lancet. Microbe Feb 2023HIV-1 infections initiated by multiple founder variants are characterised by a higher viral load and a worse clinical prognosis than those initiated with single founder... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
HIV-1 infections initiated by multiple founder variants are characterised by a higher viral load and a worse clinical prognosis than those initiated with single founder variants, yet little is known about the routes of exposure through which transmission of multiple founder variants is most probable. Here we used individual patient data to calculate the probability of multiple founders stratified by route of HIV exposure and study methodology.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that estimated founder variant multiplicity in HIV-1 infection, searching MEDLINE, Embase, and Global Health databases for papers published between Jan 1, 1990, and Sept 14, 2020. Eligible studies must have reported original estimates of founder variant multiplicity in people with acute or early HIV-1 infections, have clearly detailed the methods used, and reported the route of exposure. Studies were excluded if they reported data concerning people living with HIV-1 who had known or suspected superinfection, who were documented as having received pre-exposure prophylaxis, or if the transmitting partner was known to be receiving antiretroviral treatment. Individual patient data were collated from all studies, with authors contacted if these data were not publicly available. We applied logistic meta-regression to these data to estimate the probability that an HIV infection is initiated by multiple founder variants. We calculated a pooled estimate using a random effects model, subsequently stratifying this estimate across exposure routes in a univariable analysis. We then extended our model to adjust for different study methods in a multivariable analysis, recalculating estimates across the exposure routes. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020202672.
FINDINGS
We included 70 publications in our analysis, comprising 1657 individual patients. Our pooled estimate of the probability that an infection is initiated by multiple founder variants was 0·25 (95% CI 0·21-0·29), with moderate heterogeneity (Q=132·3, p<0·0001, I=64·2%). Our multivariable analysis uncovered differences in the probability of multiple variant infection by exposure route. Relative to a baseline of male-to-female transmission, the predicted probability for female-to-male multiple variant transmission was significantly lower at 0·13 (95% CI 0·08-0·20), and the probabilities were significantly higher for transmissions in people who inject drugs (0·37 [0·24-0·53]) and men who have sex with men (0·30 [0·33-0·40]). There was no significant difference in the probability of multiple variant transmission between male-to-female transmission (0·21 [0·14-0·31]), post-partum transmission (0·18 [0·03-0·57]), pre-partum transmission (0·17 [0·08-0·33]), and intra-partum transmission (0·27 [0·14-0·45]).
INTERPRETATION
We identified that transmissions in people who inject drugs and men who have sex with men are significantly more likely to result in an infection initiated by multiple founder variants, and female-to-male infections are significantly less probable. Quantifying how the routes of HIV infection affect the transmission of multiple variants allows us to better understand how the evolution and epidemiology of HIV-1 determine clinical outcomes.
FUNDING
Medical Research Council Precision Medicine Doctoral Training Programme and a European Research Council Starting Grant.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; HIV Infections; HIV-1; Homosexuality, Male; Sexual and Gender Minorities; Anti-HIV Agents; HIV Seropositivity
PubMed: 36642083
DOI: 10.1016/S2666-5247(22)00327-5 -
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 -
Hand Surgery & Rehabilitation Apr 2024The nail unit is the most commonly affected area in hand infections, which can be primary infection or superinfection complicating other nail or skin disorders. Trauma,... (Review)
Review
The nail unit is the most commonly affected area in hand infections, which can be primary infection or superinfection complicating other nail or skin disorders. Trauma, mechanical or chemical, is usually the trigger enabling infiltration of infectious organisms. Artificial nails and nail polish are also a possible cause of bacterial infection, harboring microorganisms. In severe acute bacterial infection, surgical intervention is often needed to prevent morbidity and disability. Abscess should always be drained, but viral infection such as herpetic whitlow, may mimic an abscess and, in contrast, requires non-operative treatment; to prevent sequelae. A more conservative approach is also generally advisable in less severe bacterial infection, other viral infections and in subacute or chronic nail infection. The present review deals with acute, subacute and chronic bacterial and viral infections of the nail unit, with a focus on diagnostic and treatment options. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, systematic review of level III studies.
Topics: Humans; Nail Diseases; Virus Diseases; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections
PubMed: 36427761
DOI: 10.1016/j.hansur.2022.11.006 -
Journal of Viral Hepatitis Feb 2023In individuals with underlying chronic liver disease (CLD), hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection is a potential trigger of acute-on-chronic liver failure. In this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
In individuals with underlying chronic liver disease (CLD), hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection is a potential trigger of acute-on-chronic liver failure. In this systematic review, seven electronic databases were searched. Pooled incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated by the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation method. The association between death or liver failure and HEV superinfection in CLD patients was estimated by the odds ratios (OR) with a 95% CI. A total of 18 studies from 5 countries were eligible for systematic review. The prevalence of acute HEV infection in hospitalized CLD patients with clinical manifestations of hepatitis was 13.6%, which was significantly higher than that in CLD patients from the community (pooled prevalence 1.1%). The overall rates of liver failure and mortality in CLD patients with HEV superinfection were 35.8% (95% CI: 26.7%-45.6%) and 14.3% (95% CI: 10.6%-18.5%), respectively, with the rates in cirrhotic patients being approximately 2-fold and 4-fold higher than those in noncirrhotic patients, respectively. The risks of liver failure (OR = 5.5, 95% CI: 1.5-20.1) and mortality (OR = 5.0, 95% CI: 1.9-13.3) were significantly higher in CLD patients with HEV superinfection than in those without HEV superinfection. HEV testing in hospitalized CLD patients is necessary due to the high prevalence of HEV infection observed in hospitalized CLD patients. HEV superinfection could accelerate disease progression in patients with underlying CLD and increase mortality in these patients. HEV vaccination is appropriate for patients with pre-existing CLD.
Topics: Humans; Hepatitis E; Superinfection; Hepatitis E virus; Prognosis; Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure
PubMed: 36177994
DOI: 10.1111/jvh.13754 -
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 -
Cureus Mar 2022The prevalence, incidence, and characteristics of bacterial infections in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 are not well understood... (Review)
Review
The prevalence, incidence, and characteristics of bacterial infections in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 are not well understood and have been raised as an important knowledge gap. Therefore, our study focused on the most common opportunistic infections/secondary infections/superinfections in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Eligible studies were identified using PubMed/Medline since inception to June 25, 2021. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were selected. Statistical analysis was conducted in Review Manager 5.4.1. A random-effect model was used when heterogeneity was seen to pool the studies, and the result was reported as inverse variance and the corresponding 95% confidence interval. We screened 701 articles comprising 22 cohort studies which were included for analysis. The pooled prevalence of opportunistic infections/secondary infections/superinfections was 16% in COVID-19 patients. The highest prevalence of secondary infections was observed among viruses at 33%, followed by bacteria at 16%, fungi at 6%, and 25% among the miscellaneous group/wrong outcome. Opportunistic infections are more prevalent in critically ill patients. The isolated pathogens included Epstein-Barr virus, , , , , and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. Large-scale studies are required to better identify opportunistic/secondary/superinfections in COVID-19 patients.
PubMed: 35505698
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.23687 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Aug 2022A significant increased risk of complications and mortality in immunocompromised patients affected by COVID-19 has been described. However, the impact of COVID-19 in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A significant increased risk of complications and mortality in immunocompromised patients affected by COVID-19 has been described. However, the impact of COVID-19 in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients is an issue still under debate, due to conflicting evidence that has emerged from different observational studies.
OBJECTIVES
We performed a systematic review with a meta-analysis to assess the clinical outcome in SOT recipients with COVID-19 compared with the general population.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed-MEDLINE and Scopus were independently searched until 13 October 2021.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Prospective or retrospective observational studies comparing clinical outcome in SOT recipients versus general populations affected by COVID-19 were included. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality.
PARTICIPANTS
Participants were patients with confirmed COVID-19.
INTERVENTIONS
Interventions reviewed were SOTs.
METHODS
The quality of the included studies was independently assessed with the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool for observational studies. The meta-analysis was performed by pooling ORs retrieved from studies providing adjustment for confounders using a random-effects model with the inverse variance method. Multiple subgroups and sensitivity analyses were conducted to investigate the source of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
A total of 3501 articles were screened, and 31 observational studies (N = 590 375; 5759 SOT recipients vs. 584 616 general population) were included in the meta-analyses. No difference in 30-day mortality rate was found in the primary analysis, including studies providing adjustment for confounders (N = 17; 3752 SOT recipients vs. 159 745 general population; OR: 1.13; 95% CI, 0.94-1.35; I = 33.9%). No evidence of publication bias was reported. A higher risk of intensive care unit admission (OR: 1.56; 95% CI, 1.03-2.63) and occurrence of acute kidney injury (OR: 2.50; 95% CI, 1.81-3.45) was found in SOT recipients.
CONCLUSIONS
No increased risk in mortality was found in SOT recipients affected by COVID-19 compared with the general population when adjusted for demographic and clinical features and COVID-19 severity.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Organ Transplantation; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Transplant Recipients
PubMed: 35289294
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.02.039 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Viruses cause about 80% of all cases of acute conjunctivitis. Human adenoviruses are believed to account for 65% to 90% of cases of viral conjunctivitis, or 20% to 75%... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Viruses cause about 80% of all cases of acute conjunctivitis. Human adenoviruses are believed to account for 65% to 90% of cases of viral conjunctivitis, or 20% to 75% of all causes of infectious keratoconjunctivitis worldwide. Epidemic keratoconjunctivitis (EKC) is a highly contagious subset of adenoviral conjunctivitis that has been associated with large outbreaks at military installations and at medical facilities. It is accompanied by severe conjunctival inflammation, watery discharge, and light sensitivity, and can lead to chronic complications such as corneal and conjunctival scarring with discomfort and poor quality of vision. Due to a lack of consensus on the efficacy of any pharmacotherapy to alter the clinical course of EKC, no standard of care exists, therefore many clinicians offer only supportive care.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of topical pharmacological therapies versus placebo, an active control, or no treatment for adults with EKC.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), with no restrictions on language or year of publication. The date of the last search was 27 April 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials in which antiseptic agents, virustatic agents, or topical immune-modulating therapy was compared with placebo, an active control, or no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 10 studies conducted in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa with a total of 892 participants who were treated for 7 days to 6 months and followed for 7 days up to 1.5 years. Study characteristics and risk of bias In most studies participants were predominantly men (range: 44% to 90%), with an age range from 9 to 82 years. Three studies reported information on trial registration, but we found no published study protocol. The majority of trials had small sample sizes, ranging from 18 to 90 participants enrolled per study; the only exception was a trial that enrolled 350 participants. We judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias across risk of bias domains. Findings We included 10 studies of 892 EKC participants and estimated combined intervention effects in analyses stratified by steroid-containing control treatment or artificial tears. Six trials contributed to the comparisons of topical interventions (povidone-iodine [PVP-I], trifluridine, ganciclovir, dexamethasone plus neomycin) with artificial tears (or saline). Very low certainty evidence from two trials comparing trifluridine or ganciclovir with artificial tears showed inconsistent effects on shortening the mean duration of cardinal symptoms or signs of EKC. Low certainty evidence based on two studies (409 participants) indicated that participants treated with PVP-I alone more often experienced resolution of symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.24) and signs (RR 3.19, 95% CI 2.29 to 4.45) during the first week of treatment compared with those treated with artificial tears. Very low certainty evidence from two studies (77 participants) suggested that PVP-I or ganciclovir prevented the development of subepithelial infiltrates (SEI) when compared with artificial tears within 30 days of treatment (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.56). Four studies compared topical interventions (tacrolimus, cyclosporin A [CsA], trifluridine, PVP-I + dexamethasone) with topical steroids, and one trial compared fluorometholone (FML) plus polyvinyl alcohol iodine (PVA-I) with FML plus levofloxacin. Evidence from one trial showed that more eyes receiving PVP-I 1.0% plus dexamethasone 0.1% had symptoms resolved by day seven compared with those receiving dexamethasone alone (RR 9.00, 95% CI 1.23 to 66.05; 52 eyes). In two trials, fewer eyes treated with PVP-I or PVA-I plus steroid developed SEI within 15 days of treatment compared with steroid alone or steroid plus levofloxacin (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55; 69 eyes). One study found that CsA was no more effective than steroid for resolving SEI within four weeks of treatment (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.06; N = 88). The evidence from trials comparing topical interventions with steroids was overall of very low level certainty. Adverse effects Antiviral or antimicrobial agents plus steroid did not differ from artificial tears in terms of ocular discomfort upon instillation (RR 9.23, 95% CI 0.61 to 140.67; N = 19). CsA and tacrolimus eye drops were associated with more cases of severe ocular discomfort, and sometimes intolerance, when compared with steroids (RR 4.64, 95% CI 1.15 to 18.71; 2 studies; N = 141). Compared with steroids, tacrolimus did not increase the risk of elevated intraocular pressure (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0 to 1.13; 1 study; N = 80), while trifluridine conferred no additional risk compared to tear substitute (RR 5.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 96.49; 1 study; N = 97). Overall, bacterial superinfection was rare (one in 23 CsA users) and not associated with use of the intervention steroid (RR 3.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 84.98; N = 51). The evidence for all estimates was of low or very low certainty.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence for the seven specified outcomes was of low or very low certainty due to imprecision and high risk of bias. The evidence that antiviral agents shorten the duration of symptoms or signs when compared with artificial tears was inconclusive. Low certainty evidence suggests that PVP-I alone resolves signs and symptoms by seven days relative to artificial tears. PVP-I or PVA-I, alone or with steroid, is associated with lower risks of SEI development than artificial tears or steroid (very low certainty evidence). The currently available evidence is insufficient to determine whether any of the evaluated interventions confers an advantage over steroids or artificial tears with respect to virus eradication or its spread to initially uninvolved fellow eyes. Future updates of this review should provide evidence of high-level certainty from trials with larger sample sizes, enrollment of participants with similar durations of signs and symptoms, and validated methods to assess short- and long-term outcomes.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Child; Conjunctivitis; Conjunctivitis, Viral; Cyclosporine; Dexamethasone; Female; Fluorometholone; Ganciclovir; Humans; Keratoconjunctivitis; Levofloxacin; Lubricant Eye Drops; Male; Middle Aged; Povidone-Iodine; Tacrolimus; Trifluridine; Young Adult
PubMed: 35238405
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013520.pub2 -
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva 2021The Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos and the Infection and Sepsis Group have previously issued health service and management recommendations for critically...
Update of the recommendations of the Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos and the Infection and Sepsis Group for the approach to COVID-19 in Intensive Care Medicine.
INTRODUCTION
The Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos and the Infection and Sepsis Group have previously issued health service and management recommendations for critically ill patients with COVID-19. Due to the evolution of knowledge, the panel of experts was again convened to review the current evidence and issue updated recommendations.
METHODS
A national panel of experts who declared that they had no conflicts of interest regarding the development of the recommendations was assembled. Operational questions were developed based on the PICO methodology, and a rapid systematic review was conducted by consulting different bibliographic sources. The panel determined the direction and strength of the recommendations using two Delphi rounds, conducted in accordance with the principles of the GRADE system. A strong recommendation received the wording "is recommended", and a weak recommendation was written as "is suggested."
RESULTS
A total of 48 recommendations and 30 suggestions were issued, covering the following topics: diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, coinfection and superinfection; criteria for admission, cure and suspension of isolation; organization of services; personal protective equipment; and respiratory support and other specific therapies (antivirals, immunomodulators and anticoagulation).
CONCLUSION
These recommendations, specifically oriented to the Portuguese reality but that may also apply to Portuguese-speaking African countries and East Timor, aim to support health professionals in the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19. They will be continuously reviewed to reflect the progress of our understanding and the treatment of this pathology.
Topics: COVID-19; Critical Care; Humans; Intensive Care Units; SARS-CoV-2; Sepsis
PubMed: 35081236
DOI: 10.5935/0103-507X.0103-507X-rbti-20210080