-
Sexually Transmitted Infections Aug 2020Genital chlamydia infection in women is often asymptomatic, but may result in adverse outcomes before and during pregnancy. The purpose of this study was to examine the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Genital chlamydia infection in women is often asymptomatic, but may result in adverse outcomes before and during pregnancy. The purpose of this study was to examine the strength of the relationships between chlamydia infection and different reproductive health outcomes and to assess the certainty of the evidence.
METHODS
This review was registered and followed the Cochrane guidelines. We searched three databases to quantitatively examine adverse outcomes associated with chlamydia infection. We included pregnancy and fertility-related outcomes. We performed meta-analyses on different study designs for various adverse outcomes using unadjusted and adjusted analyses.
RESULTS
We identified 4730 unique citations and included 107 studies reporting 12 pregnancy and fertility-related outcomes. Sixty-eight studies were conducted in high-income countries, 37 studies were conducted in low-income or middle-income countries, and 2 studies were conducted in both high-income and low-income countries. Chlamydia infection was positively associated with almost all of the 12 included pregnancy and fertility-related adverse outcomes in unadjusted analyses, including stillbirth (OR=5.05, 95% CI 2.95 to 8.65 for case-control studies and risk ratio=1.28, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.51 for cohort studies) and spontaneous abortion (OR=1.30, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.49 for case-control studies and risk ratio=1.47, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.85 for cohort studies). However, there were biases in the design and conduct of individual studies, affecting the certainty of the overall body of evidence. The risk of adverse outcomes associated with chlamydia is higher in low-income and middle-income countries compared with high-income countries.
CONCLUSION
Chlamydia is associated with an increased risk of several pregnancy and fertility-related adverse outcomes in unadjusted analyses, especially in low-income and middle-income countries. Further research on how to prevent the sequelae of chlamydia in pregnant women is needed.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42017056818.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Chlamydia Infections; Chlamydia trachomatis; Endometritis; Female; Fetal Membranes, Premature Rupture; Humans; Infant, Low Birth Weight; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Small for Gestational Age; Infertility, Female; Obstetric Labor, Premature; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Pregnancy Outcome; Pregnancy, Ectopic; Premature Birth; Puerperal Infection; Reproductive Tract Infections; Stillbirth
PubMed: 31836678
DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2019-053999 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2015Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common bacterial infection that can lead to significant morbidity including stricture, abscess formation, fistula, bacteraemia,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common bacterial infection that can lead to significant morbidity including stricture, abscess formation, fistula, bacteraemia, sepsis, pyelonephritis and kidney dysfunction. Mortality rates are reported to be as high as 1% in men and 3% in women due to development of pyelonephritis. Because probiotic therapy is readily available without a prescription, a review of their efficacy in the prevention of UTI may aid consumers in making informed decisions about potential prophylactic therapy. Institutions and caregivers also need evidence-based synopses of current evidence to make informed patient care decisions.
OBJECTIVES
Compared to placebo or no therapy, did probiotics (any formulation) provide a therapeutic advantage in terms of morbidity and mortality, when used to prevent UTI in susceptible patient populations?Compared to other prophylactic interventions, including drug and non-drug measures (e.g. continuous antibiotic prophylaxis, topical oestrogen, cranberry juice), did probiotics (any formulation) provide a therapeutic advantage in terms of morbidity and mortality when used to prevent UTIs in susceptible patient populations?
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 21 September 2015 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of susceptible patients (e.g. past history of UTI) or healthy people in which any strain, formulation, dose or frequency of probiotic was compared to placebo or active comparators were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All RCTs and quasi-RCTs (RCTs in which allocation to treatment was obtained by alternation, use of alternate medical records, date of birth or other predictable methods) looking at comparing probiotics to no therapy, placebo, or other prophylactic interventions were included. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine studies that involved 735 people in this review. Four studies compared probiotic with placebo, two compared probiotic with no treatment, two compared probiotics with antibiotics in patients with UTI, and one study compared probiotic with placebo in healthy women. All studies aimed to measure differences in rates of recurrent UTI.Our risk of bias assessment found that most studies had small sample sizes and reported insufficient methodological detail to enable robust assessment. Overall, there was a high risk of bias in the included studies which lead to inability to draw firm conclusions and suggesting that any reported treatment effects may be misleading or represent overestimates.We found no significant reduction in the risk of recurrent symptomatic bacterial UTI between patients treated with probiotics and placebo (6 studies, 352 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12; I(2) = 23%) with wide confidence intervals, and statistical heterogeneity was low. No significant reduction in the risk of recurrent symptomatic bacterial UTI was found between probiotic and antibiotic treated patients (1 study, 223 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.33).The most commonly reported adverse effects were diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, constipation and vaginal symptoms. None of the included studies reported numbers of participants with at least one asymptomatic bacterial UTI, all-cause mortality or those with at least one confirmed case of bacteraemia or fungaemia. Two studies reported study withdrawal due to adverse events and the number of participants who experienced at least one adverse event. One study reported withdrawal occurred in six probiotic participants (5.2%), 15 antibiotic participants (12.2%), while the second study noted one placebo group participant discontinued treatment due to an adverse event.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No significant benefit was demonstrated for probiotics compared with placebo or no treatment, but a benefit cannot be ruled out as the data were few, and derived from small studies with poor methodological reporting.There was limited information on harm and mortality with probiotics and no evidence on the impact of probiotics on serious adverse events. Current evidence cannot rule out a reduction or increase in recurrent UTI in women with recurrent UTI who use prophylactic probiotics. There was insufficient evidence from one RCT to comment on the effect of probiotics versus antibiotics.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Child; Female; Humans; Male; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 26695595
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008772.pub2 -
BMC Women's Health Mar 2023Vulvovaginal yeast infections in pregnancy are common and can cause extensive inflammation, which could contribute to adverse pregnancy outcomes. Symptomatic yeast... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Vulvovaginal yeast infections in pregnancy are common and can cause extensive inflammation, which could contribute to adverse pregnancy outcomes. Symptomatic yeast infections are likely to cause more inflammation than asymptomatic. The objective of this study was to investigate associations between symptomatic and asymptomatic vulvovaginal yeast infections in pregnancy and perinatal outcomes.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and searched eight databases until 01 July 2022. We included studies reporting on pregnant women with and without laboratory confirmed vulvovaginal yeast infection and preterm birth or eight other perinatal outcomes. We used random effects meta-analysis to calculate summary odds ratios (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and prediction intervals for the association between yeast infection and outcomes. We described findings from studies with multivariable analyses. We assessed the risk of bias using published tools.
RESULTS
We screened 3909 references and included 57 studies. Only 22/57 studies reported information about participant vulvovaginal symptoms. Preterm birth was an outcome in 35/57 studies (49,161 women). In 32/35 studies with available data, the summary OR from univariable analyses was 1.01 (95% CI 0.84-1.21, I 60%, prediction interval 0.45-2.23). In analyses stratified by symptom status, we found ORs of 1.44 (95% CI 0.92-2.26) in two studies with ≥ 50% symptomatic participants, 0.84 (95% CI 0.45-1.58) in seven studies with < 50% symptomatic participants, and 1.12 (95% CI 0.94-1.35) in four studies with asymptomatic participants. In three studies with multivariable analysis, adjusted ORs were greater than one but CIs were compatible with there being no association. We did not find associations between vulvovaginal yeast infection and any secondary outcome. Most studies were at high risk of bias in at least one domain and only three studies controlled for confounding.
CONCLUSIONS
We did not find strong statistical evidence of an increased risk for preterm birth or eight other adverse perinatal outcomes, in pregnant women with either symptomatic or asymptomatic vulvovaginal yeast infection. The available evidence is insufficient to make recommendations about testing and treatment of vulvovaginal yeast infection in pregnancy. Future studies should assess vulvovaginal symptoms, yeast organism loads, concomitant vaginal or cervical infections, and microbiota using state-of-the-art diagnostics.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42020197564.
Topics: Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Premature Birth; Saccharomyces cerevisiae; Pregnancy Outcome; Vagina; Inflammation
PubMed: 36944953
DOI: 10.1186/s12905-023-02258-7 -
Vaccines Jun 2022Background: Asymptomatic infections are potential sources of transmission for coronavirus disease 2019, especially during the epidemic of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant.... (Review)
Review
Background: Asymptomatic infections are potential sources of transmission for coronavirus disease 2019, especially during the epidemic of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. We aimed to assess the percentage of asymptomatic infections among SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant-positive individuals detected by gene sequencing or specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from 26 November 2021 to 13 April 2022. This meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022327894). Three researchers independently extracted data and two researchers assessed quality using pre-specified criteria. The pooled percentage with 95% confidence interval (CI) of asymptomatic infections of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron was estimated using random-effects models. Results: Our meta-analysis included eight eligible studies, covering 7640 Omicron variant-positive individuals with 2190 asymptomatic infections. The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections was 32.40% (95% CI: 25.30−39.51%) among SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant-positive individuals, which was higher in the population in developing countries (38.93%; 95% CI: 19.75−58.11%), with vaccine coverage ≥ 80% (35.93%; 95% CI: 25.36−46.51%), with a travel history (40.05%; 95% CI: 7.59−72.51%), community infection (37.97%; 95% CI: 10.07−65.87%), and with a median age < 20 years (43.75%; 95% CI: 38.45−49.05%). Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections was 32.40% among SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant-positive individuals. The people who were vaccinated, young (median age < 20 years), had a travel history, and were infected outside of a clinical setting (community infection) had higher percentages of asymptomatic infections. Screening is required to prevent clustered epidemics or sustained community transmission caused by asymptomatic infections of Omicron variants, especially for countries and regions that have successfully controlled SARS-CoV-2.
PubMed: 35891214
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10071049 -
The Journal of Infectious Diseases Apr 2020Hepatitis delta virus (HDV) coinfects with hepatitis B virus (HBV) causing the most severe form of viral hepatitis. However, its exact global disease burden remains... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Hepatitis delta virus (HDV) coinfects with hepatitis B virus (HBV) causing the most severe form of viral hepatitis. However, its exact global disease burden remains largely obscure. We aim to establish the global epidemiology, infection mode-stratified disease progression, and clinical outcome of HDV infection.
METHODS
We conducted a meta-analysis with a random-effects model and performed data synthesis.
RESULTS
The pooled prevalence of HDV is 0.80% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-1.00) among the general population and 13.02% (95% CI, 11.96-14.11) among HBV carriers, corresponding to 48-60 million infections globally. Among HBV patients with fulminant hepatitis, cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma, HDV prevalence is 26.75% (95% CI, 19.84-34.29), 25.77% (95% CI, 20.62-31.27), and 19.80% (95% CI, 10.97-30.45), respectively. The odds ratio (OR) of HDV infection among HBV patients with chronic liver disease compared with asymptomatic controls is 4.55 (95% CI, 3.65-5.67). Hepatitis delta virus-coinfected patients are more likely to develop cirrhosis than HBV-monoinfected patients with OR of 3.84 (95% CI, 1.79-8.24). Overall, HDV infection progresses to cirrhosis within 5 years and to hepatocellular carcinoma within 10 years, on average.
CONCLUSIONS
Findings suggest that HDV poses a heavy global burden with rapid progression to severe liver diseases, urging effective strategies for screening, prevention, and treatment.
Topics: Developing Countries; Global Health; Hepatitis D; Hepatitis Delta Virus; Humans; Prevalence; Risk Factors
PubMed: 31778167
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiz633 -
Public Health Feb 2022Countries throughout the world are experiencing COVID-19 viral load in their populations, leading to potential transmission and infectivity of asymptomatic COVID-19... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Countries throughout the world are experiencing COVID-19 viral load in their populations, leading to potential transmission and infectivity of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the role of asymptomatic infection and transmission reported in family clusters, adults, children and health care workers, globally.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
An online literature search of PubMed, Google Scholar, medRixv and BioRixv was performed using standard Boolean operators and included studies published up to 17 August 2021. For the systematic review, case reports, short communications and retrospective studies were included to ensure sufficient asymptomatic COVID-19 transmission data were reported. For the quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis), participant data from a collection of cohort studies focusing on groups of familial clusters, adults, children and health care workers were included. Inconsistency among studies was assessed using I statistics. The data synthesis was computed using the STATA 16.0 software.
RESULTS
This study showed asymptomatic transmission among familial clusters, adults, children and health care workers of 15.72%, 29.48%, 24.09% and 0%, respectively. Overall, asymptomatic transmission was 24.51% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.38, 36.02) among all studied population groups, with a heterogeneity of I = 95.30% (P < 0.001). No heterogeneity was seen in the population subgroups of children and health care workers. The risk of bias in all included studies was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.
CONCLUSIONS
For minimising the spread of COVID-19 within the community, this study found that following the screening of asymptomatic cases and their close contacts for chest CT scan (for symptomatic patients), even after negative nucleic acid testing, it is essential to perform a rigorous epidemiological history, early isolation, social distancing and an increased quarantine period (a minimum of 14-28 days). This systematic review and meta-analysis supports the notion of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection and person-to-person transmission and suggests that this is dependent on the varying viral incubation period among individuals. Children, especially those of school age (i.e. <18 years), need to be monitored carefully and follow mitigation strategies (e.g. social distancing, hand hygiene, wearing face masks) to prevent asymptomatic community transmission of COVID-19.
Topics: Adult; Asymptomatic Infections; COVID-19; Child; Humans; Quarantine; Retrospective Studies; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 35038628
DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2021.12.003 -
Infectious Medicine Mar 2023Global evidence on the transmission of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection needs to be synthesized.
BACKGROUND
Global evidence on the transmission of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection needs to be synthesized.
METHODS
A search of 4 electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases) as of January 24, 2021 was performed. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Studies which reported the transmission rate among close contacts with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 cases were included, and transmission activities occurred were considered. The transmission rates were pooled by zero-inflated beta distribution. The risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using random-effects models.
RESULTS
Of 4923 records retrieved and reviewed, 15 studies including 3917 close contacts with asymptomatic indexes were eligible. The pooled transmission rates were 1.79 per 100 person-days (or 1.79%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41%-3.16%) by asymptomatic index, which is significantly lower than by presymptomatic (5.02%, 95% CI 2.37%-7.66%; <0.001), and by symptomatic (5.27%, 95% CI 2.40%-8.15%; <0.001). Subgroup analyses showed that the household transmission rate of asymptomatic index was (4.22%, 95% CI 0.91%-7.52%), four times significantly higher than non-household transmission (1.03%, 95% CI 0.73%-1.33%; =0.03), and the asymptomatic transmission rate in China (1.82%, 95% CI 0.11%-3.53%) was lower than in other countries (2.22%, 95% CI 0.67%-3.77%; =0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
People with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection are at risk of transmitting the virus to their close contacts, particularly in household settings. The transmission potential of asymptomatic infection is lower than symptomatic and presymptomatic infections. This meta-analysis provides evidence for predicting the epidemic trend and promulgating vaccination and other control measures. Registered with PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, CRD42021269446; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=269446.
PubMed: 38013777
DOI: 10.1016/j.imj.2022.12.001 -
Vaccines Dec 2022Background: Monkeypox is a global public health concern, given the recent outbreaks in non-endemic countries where little scientific evidence exists on the disease.... (Review)
Review
Background: Monkeypox is a global public health concern, given the recent outbreaks in non-endemic countries where little scientific evidence exists on the disease. Specifically, there is a lack of data on asymptomatic monkeypox virus infection. This study aims to evaluate the overall prevalence of asymptomatic monkeypox virus infection. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we performed an extensive literature search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, EMBASE, EBSCOHost, Cochrane, and preprint servers (medRxiv, arXiv, bioRxiv, BioRN, ChiRxiv, ChiRN, and SSRN) and assessed all published articles till September 2022. Primary studies reporting monkeypox infections among asymptomatic participants were included after quality assessment. The characteristics of the study and information on the number of cases and symptomatic status were extracted from the included studies. The heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I2 statistic. Publication bias was analyzed using funnel plots and Egger regression tests. The primary outcome was the pooled prevalence of asymptomatic infections within the examined population. Results: A total of 16 studies were included for qualitative synthesis, while five studies, including 645 individuals, were included for quantitative synthesis. There was substantial heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 94.86%; p < 0.01), with a pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections in the studied population of 10.2% (95%CI, 2.5−17.9%). Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that many people infected with the monkeypox virus are asymptomatic and difficult to detect. Therefore, prompt detection of these cases of monkeypox virus and appropriate subsequent management is of utmost importance to global public health.
PubMed: 36560493
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10122083 -
International Journal of Infectious... Sep 2020Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by an unpredictable disease course, ranging from asymptomatic to severe, life-threatening infections. Asymptomatic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by an unpredictable disease course, ranging from asymptomatic to severe, life-threatening infections. Asymptomatic COVID-19 infections have been described, and the aim of this systematic review was to summarise their presentation forms.
METHODS
We searched PubMed® and Google® (1 December 2019 to 29 March 2020) and extracted age, laboratory findings, and computed tomography (CT) scans. Pooled incidence rates of clinical characteristics were analyzed using random-effect models.
RESULTS
In total, 506 patients from 34 studies (68 single cases and 438 from case-series) with an asymptomatic course were identified. Patients with normal radiology were younger (19.59 ± 17.17 years) than patients with abnormal radiology (39.14 ± 26.70 years) (p-value = 0.013). Despite being asymptomatic, CT investigations revealed abnormalities in 62.2% of the cases; ground-glass opacities were most frequently observed (43.09% by meta-analysis). Most studies reported normal laboratory findings (61.74% by meta-analysis).
CONCLUSIONS
More than half of the patients without any symptoms present with CT abnormalities. Asymptomatic patients may be contagious and thus a potential source of transmission of COVID-19.
Topics: Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Disease Progression; Humans; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 32562846
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.06.052 -
Proceedings of the National Academy of... Aug 2021Quantification of asymptomatic infections is fundamental for effective public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Discrepancies regarding the extent of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Quantification of asymptomatic infections is fundamental for effective public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Discrepancies regarding the extent of asymptomaticity have arisen from inconsistent terminology as well as conflation of index and secondary cases which biases toward lower asymptomaticity. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and World Health Organization Global Research Database on COVID-19 between January 1, 2020 and April 2, 2021 to identify studies that reported silent infections at the time of testing, whether presymptomatic or asymptomatic. Index cases were removed to minimize representational bias that would result in overestimation of symptomaticity. By analyzing over 350 studies, we estimate that the percentage of infections that never developed clinical symptoms, and thus were truly asymptomatic, was 35.1% (95% CI: 30.7 to 39.9%). At the time of testing, 42.8% (95% prediction interval: 5.2 to 91.1%) of cases exhibited no symptoms, a group comprising both asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections. Asymptomaticity was significantly lower among the elderly, at 19.7% (95% CI: 12.7 to 29.4%) compared with children at 46.7% (95% CI: 32.0 to 62.0%). We also found that cases with comorbidities had significantly lower asymptomaticity compared to cases with no underlying medical conditions. Without proactive policies to detect asymptomatic infections, such as rapid contact tracing, prolonged efforts for pandemic control may be needed even in the presence of vaccination.
Topics: Asymptomatic Infections; COVID-19; Humans; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34376550
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2109229118