-
Cancer Mar 2021Despite the significant societal burden of human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated cancers, clinical screening interventions for HPV-associated noncervical cancers are not... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Despite the significant societal burden of human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated cancers, clinical screening interventions for HPV-associated noncervical cancers are not available. Blood-based biomarkers may help close this gap in care.
METHODS
Five databases were searched, 5687 articles were identified, and 3631 unique candidate titles and abstracts were independently reviewed by 2 authors; 702 articles underwent a full-text review. Eligibility criteria included the assessment of a blood-based biomarker within a cohort or case-control study.
RESULTS
One hundred thirty-seven studies were included. Among all biomarkers assessed, HPV-16 E seropositivity and circulating HPV DNA were most significantly correlated with HPV-associated cancers in comparison with cancer-free controls. In most scenarios, HPV-16 E6 seropositivity varied nonsignificantly according to tumor type, specimen collection timing, and anatomic site (crude odds ratio [cOR] for p16+ or HPV+ oropharyngeal cancer [OPC], 133.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 59.40-298.21; cOR for HPV-unspecified OPC, 25.41; 95% CI, 8.71-74.06; cOR for prediagnostic HPV-unspecified OPC, 59.00; 95% CI, 15.39-226.25; cOR for HPV-unspecified cervical cancer, 12.05; 95% CI, 3.23-44.97; cOR for HPV-unspecified anal cancer, 73.60; 95% CI, 19.68-275.33; cOR for HPV-unspecified penile cancer, 16.25; 95% CI, 2.83-93.48). Circulating HPV-16 DNA was a valid biomarker for cervical cancer (cOR, 15.72; 95% CI, 3.41-72.57). In 3 cervical cancer case-control studies, cases exhibited unique microRNA expression profiles in comparison with controls. Other assessed biomarker candidates were not valid.
CONCLUSIONS
HPV-16 E6 antibodies and circulating HPV-16 DNA are the most robustly analyzed and most promising blood-based biomarkers for HPV-associated cancers to date. Comparative validity analyses are warranted. Variations in tumor type-specific, high-risk HPV DNA prevalence according to anatomic site and world region highlight the need for biomarkers targeting more high-risk HPV types. Further investigation of blood-based microRNA expression profiling appears indicated.
Topics: Antibodies, Viral; Anus Neoplasms; Biomarkers; DNA, Viral; Female; Human papillomavirus 16; Humans; Oropharyngeal Neoplasms; Papillomavirus Infections; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 33270909
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.33221 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Mar 2021COVID-19 has been arguably the most important public health concern worldwide in 2020, and efforts are now escalating to suppress or eliminate its spread. In this study... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
COVID-19 has been arguably the most important public health concern worldwide in 2020, and efforts are now escalating to suppress or eliminate its spread. In this study we undertook a meta-analysis to estimate the global and regional seroprevalence rates in humans of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and to assess whether seroprevalence is associated with geographical, climatic and/or sociodemographic factors.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed PubMed, Scopus, Embase, medRxiv and bioRxiv databases for preprints or peer-reviewed articles (up to 14 August 2020). Study eligibility criteria were population-based studies describing the prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 (IgG and/or IgM) serum antibodies. Participants were people from different socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds (from the general population), whose prior COVID-19 status was unknown and who were tested for the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 serum antibodies. We used a random-effects model to estimate pooled seroprevalence, and then extrapolated the findings to the global population (for 2020). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses explored potential sources of heterogeneity in the data, and relationships between seroprevalence and sociodemographic, geographical and/or climatic factors.
RESULTS
In total, 47 studies involving 399 265 people from 23 countries met the inclusion criteria. Heterogeneity (I = 99.4%, p < 0.001) was seen among studies; SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in the general population varied from 0.37% to 22.1%, with a pooled estimate of 3.38% (95%CI 3.05-3.72%; 15 879/399 265). On a regional level, seroprevalence varied from 1.45% (0.95-1.94%, South America) to 5.27% (3.97-6.57%, Northern Europe), although some variation appeared to relate to the serological assay used. The findings suggested an association of seroprevalence with income levels, human development indices, geographic latitudes and/or climate. Extrapolating to the 2020 world population, we estimated that 263.5 million individuals had been exposed or infected at the time of this study.
CONCLUSIONS
This study showed that SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence varied markedly among geographic regions, as might be expected early in a pandemic. Longitudinal surveys to continually monitor seroprevalence around the globe will be critical to support prevention and control efforts, and might indicate levels of endemic stability or instability in particular countries and regions.
Topics: Adult; Antibodies, Viral; COVID-19; COVID-19 Serological Testing; Child; Climate; Female; Geography; Global Health; Humans; Male; SARS-CoV-2; Seroepidemiologic Studies; Socioeconomic Factors; Time Factors
PubMed: 33228974
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.10.020 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Specific diagnostic tests to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and resulting COVID-19 disease are not always available and take time to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Specific diagnostic tests to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and resulting COVID-19 disease are not always available and take time to obtain results. Routine laboratory markers such as white blood cell count, measures of anticoagulation, C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin, are used to assess the clinical status of a patient. These laboratory tests may be useful for the triage of people with potential COVID-19 to prioritize them for different levels of treatment, especially in situations where time and resources are limited.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of routine laboratory testing as a triage test to determine if a person has COVID-19.
SEARCH METHODS
On 4 May 2020 we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included both case-control designs and consecutive series of patients that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of routine laboratory testing as a triage test to determine if a person has COVID-19. The reference standard could be reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) alone; RT-PCR plus clinical expertise or and imaging; repeated RT-PCR several days apart or from different samples; WHO and other case definitions; and any other reference standard used by the study authors.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from each included study. They also assessed the methodological quality of the studies, using QUADAS-2. We used the 'NLMIXED' procedure in SAS 9.4 for the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) meta-analyses of tests for which we included four or more studies. To facilitate interpretation of results, for each meta-analysis we estimated summary sensitivity at the points on the SROC curve that corresponded to the median and interquartile range boundaries of specificities in the included studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 studies in this review, including 14,126 COVID-19 patients and 56,585 non-COVID-19 patients in total. Studies evaluated a total of 67 different laboratory tests. Although we were interested in the diagnotic accuracy of routine tests for COVID-19, the included studies used detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection through RT-PCR as reference standard. There was considerable heterogeneity between tests, threshold values and the settings in which they were applied. For some tests a positive result was defined as a decrease compared to normal vaues, for other tests a positive result was defined as an increase, and for some tests both increase and decrease may have indicated test positivity. None of the studies had either low risk of bias on all domains or low concerns for applicability for all domains. Only three of the tests evaluated had a summary sensitivity and specificity over 50%. These were: increase in interleukin-6, increase in C-reactive protein and lymphocyte count decrease. Blood count Eleven studies evaluated a decrease in white blood cell count, with a median specificity of 93% and a summary sensitivity of 25% (95% CI 8.0% to 27%; very low-certainty evidence). The 15 studies that evaluated an increase in white blood cell count had a lower median specificity and a lower corresponding sensitivity. Four studies evaluated a decrease in neutrophil count. Their median specificity was 93%, corresponding to a summary sensitivity of 10% (95% CI 1.0% to 56%; low-certainty evidence). The 11 studies that evaluated an increase in neutrophil count had a lower median specificity and a lower corresponding sensitivity. The summary sensitivity of an increase in neutrophil percentage (4 studies) was 59% (95% CI 1.0% to 100%) at median specificity (38%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in monocyte count (4 studies) was 13% (95% CI 6.0% to 26%) at median specificity (73%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of a decrease in lymphocyte count (13 studies) was 64% (95% CI 28% to 89%) at median specificity (53%; low-certainty evidence). Four studies that evaluated a decrease in lymphocyte percentage showed a lower median specificity and lower corresponding sensitivity. The summary sensitivity of a decrease in platelets (4 studies) was 19% (95% CI 10% to 32%) at median specificity (88%; low-certainty evidence). Liver function tests The summary sensitivity of an increase in alanine aminotransferase (9 studies) was 12% (95% CI 3% to 34%) at median specificity (92%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in aspartate aminotransferase (7 studies) was 29% (95% CI 17% to 45%) at median specificity (81%) (low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of a decrease in albumin (4 studies) was 21% (95% CI 3% to 67%) at median specificity (66%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in total bilirubin (4 studies) was 12% (95% CI 3.0% to 34%) at median specificity (92%; very low-certainty evidence). Markers of inflammation The summary sensitivity of an increase in CRP (14 studies) was 66% (95% CI 55% to 75%) at median specificity (44%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in procalcitonin (6 studies) was 3% (95% CI 1% to 19%) at median specificity (86%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in IL-6 (four studies) was 73% (95% CI 36% to 93%) at median specificity (58%) (very low-certainty evidence). Other biomarkers The summary sensitivity of an increase in creatine kinase (5 studies) was 11% (95% CI 6% to 19%) at median specificity (94%) (low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in serum creatinine (four studies) was 7% (95% CI 1% to 37%) at median specificity (91%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in lactate dehydrogenase (4 studies) was 25% (95% CI 15% to 38%) at median specificity (72%; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although these tests give an indication about the general health status of patients and some tests may be specific indicators for inflammatory processes, none of the tests we investigated are useful for accurately ruling in or ruling out COVID-19 on their own. Studies were done in specific hospitalized populations, and future studies should consider non-hospital settings to evaluate how these tests would perform in people with milder symptoms.
Topics: Bias; Biomarkers; C-Reactive Protein; COVID-19; COVID-19 Testing; Creatine Kinase; Creatinine; Diagnostic Tests, Routine; Humans; Interleukin-6; L-Lactate Dehydrogenase; Leukocyte Count; Liver Function Tests; Lymphocyte Count; Pandemics; Platelet Count; ROC Curve; Reference Values; Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction; SARS-CoV-2; Sensitivity and Specificity; Triage
PubMed: 33211319
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013787 -
Journal of Clinical Immunology Jan 2021Cytokine storm, an uncontrolled overproduction of inflammatory cytokines contributing to an aberrant systemic inflammatory response, is a major pathological feature of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Circulating Levels of Interleukin-6 and Interleukin-10, But Not Tumor Necrosis Factor-Alpha, as Potential Biomarkers of Severity and Mortality for COVID-19: Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
Cytokine storm, an uncontrolled overproduction of inflammatory cytokines contributing to an aberrant systemic inflammatory response, is a major pathological feature of acute respiratory distress syndromes being severe manifestations of COVID-19, thus highlighting its potential as a biomarker and therapeutic target for COVID-19. We aimed to determine associations of circulating levels of inflammatory cytokines with severity and mortality of COVID-19 by systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search in electronic databases consisting of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library and in a hand searching of reference lists from inception to July 31, 2020, was performed using the following search terms: COVID-19, interleukin (IL)-6, IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α). Mean difference (MD) from individual studies was pooled using a random-effects model. Quality assessment, publication bias, meta-regression, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS
A total of 6212 COVID-19 patients from 24 eligible studies were included. Compared with non-severe COVID-19 patients, systemic levels of IL-6 and IL-10, but not TNF-α, were significantly elevated in severe COVID-19 patients (MD = 18.63, 95% CI: 10.91, 26.35, P < 0.00001; MD = 2.61, 95% CI: 2.00, 2.32, P < 0.00001; respectively). For COVID-19 mortality, circulating levels of IL-6, IL-10, and TNF-α were found to be significantly increased in non-survivors when compared with survivors (MD = 57.82, 95% CI: 10.04, 105.59, P = 0.02; MD = 4.94, 95% CI: 3.89, 6.00, P < 0.00001; MD = 5.60, 95% CI: 4.03, 7.17, P < 0.00001; respectively).
CONCLUSION
Circulating levels of IL-6 and IL-10 might have great potential as biomarkers for the disease severity and mortality in COVID-19 patients.
Topics: Biomarkers; COVID-19; Cytokine Release Syndrome; Humans; Interleukin-10; Interleukin-6; SARS-CoV-2; Severity of Illness Index; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 33128665
DOI: 10.1007/s10875-020-00899-z -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2020Diabetes mellitus is considered a common comorbidity of COVID-19, which has a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations ranging from asymptomatic infection to severe... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Diabetes mellitus is considered a common comorbidity of COVID-19, which has a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations ranging from asymptomatic infection to severe respiratory symptoms and even death. However, the impact of COVID-19 on blood glucose has not been fully understood. This meta-analysis aimed to summarize available data on the association between glycemic parameters and severity of COVID-19. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched from December 1, 2019 to May 15, 2020. Observational studies investigating blood glucose or glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) according to the severity of COVID-19 were considered for inclusion. Two independent researchers extracted data from eligible studies using a standardized data extraction sheet and then proceeded to cross check the results. Data were pooled using a fixed- or random-effects model to calculate the weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Three studies reported blood glucose and HbA1c according to the severity of COVID-19 and were included in this meta-analysis. The combined results showed that severe COVID-19 was associated with higher blood glucose (WMD 2.21, 95% CI: 1.30-3.13, < 0.001). In addition, HbA1c was slightly higher in patients with severe COVID-19 than those with mild COVID-19, yet this difference did not reach significance (WMD 0.29, 95% CI: -0.59 to 1.16, = 0.52). This meta-analysis provides evidence that severe COVID-19 is associated with increased blood glucose. This highlights the need to effectively monitor blood glucose to improve prognosis in patients infected with COVID-19.
Topics: Betacoronavirus; Blood Glucose; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hyperglycemia; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 33123093
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2020.574541 -
BMJ Open Oct 2020With a marginally effective vaccine and no significant breakthroughs in new treatments, a sensitive and specific method to distinguish active tuberculosis from latent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
With a marginally effective vaccine and no significant breakthroughs in new treatments, a sensitive and specific method to distinguish active tuberculosis from latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) would allow for early diagnosis and limit the spread of the pathogen. The analysis of multiple cytokine profiles provides the possibility to differentiate the two diseases.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Cochrane Library, Clinical Key and EMBASE databases were searched on 31 December 2019.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included case-control studies, cohort studies and randomised controlled trials considering IFN-γ, TNF-α, IP-10, IL-2, IL-10, IL-12 and VEGF as biomarkers to distinguish active tuberculosis and LTBI.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two students independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Diagnostic OR, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios and area under the curve (AUC) together with 95% CI were used to estimate the diagnostic value.
RESULTS
Of 1315 records identified, 14 studies were considered eligible. IL-2 had the highest sensitivity (0.84, 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.92), while VEGF had the highest specificity (0.87, 95% CI: 0.73 to 0.94). The highest AUC was observed for VEGF (0.85, 95% CI: 0.81 to 0.88), followed by IFN-γ (0.84, 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.87) and IL-2 (0.84, 95% CI: 0.81 to 0.87).
CONCLUSION
Cytokines, such as IL-2, IFN-γ and VEGF, can be utilised as promising biomarkers to distinguish active tuberculosis from LTBI.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020170725.
Topics: Biomarkers; Case-Control Studies; Cytokines; Diagnosis, Differential; Humans; Latent Tuberculosis; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tuberculosis
PubMed: 33033030
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039501 -
European Review For Medical and... Sep 2020In December 2019, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection broke out in Wuhan, China. However, we still lack a comprehensive understanding...
OBJECTIVE
In December 2019, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection broke out in Wuhan, China. However, we still lack a comprehensive understanding of this emerging virus. In this manuscript, we collected relevant articles and reviewed the characteristics about SARS-CoV-2.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We performed an online search on PubMed and Web of Science with the keywords COVID-19, 2019-nCoV and SARS-CoV-2, and summarized the epidemiology, virology, clinical features and treatments of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
RESULTS
We retrieved 157 published papers about SARS-CoV-2 from January, 2020 to April, 2020. We found that SARS-CoV-2 was a kind of virus with low mortality rate and high infectivity. This virus can enter human cells through angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) in alveoli and activate immune response in human body. SARS-CoV-2 infection can be classified as asymptomatic, mild, common, severe, and critical. We summarized antiviral drugs against SARS-CoV-2, such as remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and favipiravir. Because the vaccine of SARS-CoV-2 is developing, more clinical studies are needed to verify the safety and efficacy of these treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus that has caused a global pandemic. We should pay more attention to prevent SARS-CoV-2 and try to control it sooner.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2; Antiviral Agents; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Immunotherapy; Pandemics; Peptidyl-Dipeptidase A; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 32965016
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202009_22873 -
BMC Cancer Sep 2020An increasing number of studies have described the aberrant expression of homeobox (HOX) proteins in gastric cancer (GC), which is critically associated with the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
An increasing number of studies have described the aberrant expression of homeobox (HOX) proteins in gastric cancer (GC), which is critically associated with the prognosis and clinicopathological characteristics of GC. This study was conducted to investigate the clinical value and action mechanisms of HOX proteins in GC.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) with its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) and the pooled odds ratio (OR) with its 95% CI were used to assess the effect of HOX protein expression on the prognosis and clinicopathological features of GC, respectively.
RESULTS
Nineteen studies containing 3775 patients were selected for this study. Heterogeneity among HRs of overall survival (OS) was markedly high (I = 90.5%, p = 0.000). According to the subgroup analysis, increased expression of HOX protein in the downregulated subgroup was associated with a good prognosis for patients with GC (pooled HR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.36-0.59, I = 3.1%, p = 0.377), while overexpression of HOX protein in the upregulated subgroup was correlated with a reduced OS (pooled HR: 2.59, 95% CI: 1.79-3.74, I = 73.5%, p = 0.000). The aberrant expression of HOX protein was crucially related to the TNM stage, depth of tumour invasion, tumour size, lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis, vascular invasion, histological differentiation and Lauren classification in patients with GC. In addition, the molecular mechanisms by which HOX proteins regulate tumorigenesis and development of GC were also explored.
CONCLUSIONS
HOX proteins play vital roles in GC progression, which might serve as prognostic markers and therapeutic targets for GC.
Topics: Biomarkers, Tumor; Disease Progression; Homeodomain Proteins; Humans; Lymphatic Metastasis; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Prognosis; Proportional Hazards Models; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 32907552
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-07346-7 -
International Immunopharmacology Nov 2020The global panic of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) triggered by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to an urgent...
The global panic of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) triggered by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to an urgent requirement for effective therapy. COVID-19 infection, especially in severely ill patients, is likely to be associated with immune dysregulation, prompting the development of novel treatment approaches. Therefore, this systematic review was designed to assess the available data regarding the efficacy of the immunomodulatory drugs used to manage COVID-19. A systematic literature search was carried out up to May 27, 2020, in four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) and also Clinicaltrials.gov. Sixty-six publications and 111 clinical trials were recognized as eligible, reporting the efficacy of the immunomodulatory agents, including corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, passive and cytokine-targeted therapies, mesenchymal stem cells, and blood-purification therapy, in COVID-19 patients. The data were found to be heterogeneous, and the clinical trials were yet to post any findings. Medicines were found to regulate the immune system by boosting the innate responses or suppressing the inflammatory reactions. Passive and cytokine-targeted therapies and mesenchymal stem cells were mostly safe and could regulate the disease much better. These studies underscored the significance of severity profiling in COVID-19 patients, along with appropriate timing, duration, and dosage of the therapies. Therefore, this review indicates that immunomodulatory therapies are potentially effective for COVID-19 and provides comprehensive information for clinicians to fight this outbreak. However, there is no consensus on the optimal therapy for COVID-19, reflecting that the immunomodulatory therapies still warrant further investigations.
Topics: Adaptive Immunity; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Clinical Trials as Topic; Coronavirus Infections; Cytokines; Humans; Immunity, Innate; Immunotherapy; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32896750
DOI: 10.1016/j.intimp.2020.106942 -
Gastroenterologia Y Hepatologia Oct 2020The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is leading to high mortality and a global health crisis. The primary involvement is respiratory; however, the virus can also affect other organs,...
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is leading to high mortality and a global health crisis. The primary involvement is respiratory; however, the virus can also affect other organs, such as the gastrointestinal tract and liver. The most common symptoms are anorexia and diarrhea. In about half of the cases, viral RNA could be detected in the stool, which is another line of transmission and diagnosis. covid19 has a worse prognosis in patients with comorbidities, although there is not enough evidence in case of previous digestive diseases. Digestive endoscopies may give rise to aerosols, which make them techniques with a high risk of infection. Experts and scientific organizations worldwide have developed guidelines for preventive measures. The available evidence on gastrointestinal and hepatic involvement, the impact on patients with previous digestive diseases and operating guidelines for Endoscopy Units during the pandemic are reviewed.
Topics: Aerosols; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2; Anorexia; Antiviral Agents; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Cohort Studies; Coronavirus Infections; Diarrhea; Digestive System; Digestive System Diseases; Endoscopy, Digestive System; Feces; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Intestines; Liver Diseases; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Pandemics; Peptidyl-Dipeptidase A; Personal Protective Equipment; Pneumonia, Viral; Receptors, Virus; Risk; SARS-CoV-2; Universal Precautions; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 32859408
DOI: 10.1016/j.gastrohep.2020.06.004