A report of clinical diagnosis and treatment of nine cases of coronavirus disease 2019

Intradermal delivery of SARS-CoV-2 RBD3-Fc mRNA vaccines via a needle-free injection system induces robust immune responses in rats

Introduction

Needle-free injection system (NFIS) is easy to operate and can decrease needle phobia. Besides, NFIS can increase the interaction of antigens in a more dispersed manner with immune cell at local injection site, which may improve the immune responses of mRNA vaccines. Although SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines have great success, universal vaccines are urgently needed. Delivering universal mRNA vaccines by NFIS is preferred to combat COVID-19.

Methods

RBD3-Fc mRNA expressing BA.4, Delta, and prototype RBD, and human IgG Fc with YTE mutation was designed and synthesized. The safety and immune responses of universal RBD3-Fc naked mRNA and mRNA-LNP vaccines delivered intradermally using NFIS (named GV-01) and intramuscularly via needles were evaluated and compared in rats.

Results

The prime-boost regimen administered by two routes resulted in potent immune responses and intradermal delivery displays comparable or better performance in terms of binding antibodies, neutralizing antibodies and T cell responses. Naked mRNA vaccines were functional, but less effective than mRNA-LNP vaccines.

Discussion

The above results suggest that RBD3-Fc vaccines are safe and immunogenic and NFIS can be used as an alternative to needles/syringes for the inoculation of mRNA-LNP vaccines to elicit robust systematic immune responses.

Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Gut distress and intervention via communications of SARS-CoV-2 with mucosal exposome

Acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with prevalent gastrointestinal distress, characterized by fecal shedding of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA or persistent antigen presence in the gut. Using a meta-analysis, the present review addressed gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea. Despite limited data on the gut-lung axis, viral transmission to the gut and its influence on gut mucosa and microbial community were found to be associated by means of various biochemical mechanisms. Notably, the prolonged presence of viral antigens and disrupted mucosal immunity may increase gut microbial and inflammatory risks, leading to acute pathological outcomes or post-acute COVID-19 symptoms. Patients with COVID-19 exhibit lower bacterial diversity and a higher relative abundance of opportunistic pathogens in their gut microbiota than healthy controls. Considering the dysbiotic changes during infection, remodeling or supplementation with beneficial microbial communities may counteract adverse outcomes in the gut and other organs in patients with COVID-19. Moreover, nutritional status, such as vitamin D deficiency, has been associated with disease severity in patients with COVID-19 via the regulation of the gut microbial community and host immunity. The nutritional and microbiological interventions improve the gut exposome including the host immunity, gut microbiota, and nutritional status, contributing to defense against acute or post-acute COVID-19 in the gut-lung axis.

Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have low certainty evidence for our primary outcomes. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

The Expression Levels of SARS-CoV-2 Infection-Mediating Molecules Promoted by Interferon-γ and Tumor Necrosis Factor-α Are Downregulated by Hydrogen Sulfide

Autoimmune thyroid diseases (AITDs), which include Hashimoto's thyroiditis (HT) and Graves' disease (GD), have a higher prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the literature. The effects of AITD-associated cytokines on SARS-CoV-2 infection-mediating molecule levels might be involved in the pathogenesis of susceptibility. We speculated that hydrogen sulfide (H2S) might attenuate this process since H2S has antiviral effects. Using immunohistochemistry, we found that angiotensin-converting enzyme-II (ACE2) expression was higher in the HT group and neuropilin 1 (NRP1) expression was higher in HT and GD groups than in the normal group, while transmembrane protease serine type 2 (TMPRSS2) expression was lower in HT and GD groups. When culturing primary thyrocytes with cytokines or sodium hydrosulfide (NaHS) plus cytokines, we found that ACE2 and NRP1 mRNA levels were upregulated while TMPRSS2 levels were downregulated by interferon-γ (IFN-γ) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α). After pretreatment with NaHS in thyrocytes, ACE2 and NRP1 expression were downregulated compared to IFN-γ or TNF-α treatment, and NaHS had no effect on TMPRSS2 expression. Our findings suggested that IFN-γ and TNF-α, which are elevated in AITDs, promoted ACE2 and NRP1 expression and inhibited TMPRSS2 expression. H2S might protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection by downregulating ACE2 and NRP1 levels.

Twelve Months with COVID-19: What Gastroenterologists Need to Know

Corona virus disease-19 (COVID-19) is the latest global pandemic. COVID-19 is mainly transmitted through respiratory droplets and, apart from respiratory symptoms, patients often present with gastrointestinal symptoms and liver involvement. Given the high percentage of COVID-19 patients that present with gastrointestinal symptoms (GIS), in this review, we report a practical up-to-date reference for the physician in their clinical practice with patients affected by chronic gastrointestinal (GI) diseases (inflammatory bowel disease, coeliac disease, chronic liver disease) at the time of COVID-19. First, we summarised data on the origin and pathogenetic mechanism of SARS-CoV-2. Then, we performed a literature search up to December 2020 examining clinical manifestations of GI involvement. Next, we illustrated and summarised the most recent guidelines on how to adhere to GI procedures (endoscopy, liver biopsy, faecal transplantation), maintaining social distance and how to deal with immunosuppressive treatment. Finally, we focussed on some special conditions such as faecal-oral transmission and gut microbiota. The rapid accumulation of information relating to this condition makes it particularly essential to revise the literature to take account of the most recent publications for medical consultation and patient care.

Prevalence of comorbidities and symptoms stratified by severity of illness amongst adult patients with COVID-19: a systematic review

Introduction

We performed a systematic review of comorbidities and symptoms of adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to evaluate comorbidities, symptoms, and severity.

Material and methods

We searched databases and extracted comorbidities and symptoms from the included studies. We stratified the similar signs and symptoms in groups and on the basis of severity and compared them with stratified analysis. Individual case reports and case series with < 5 patients were excluded.

Results

A total of 163 studies with 43,187 patients were included. Mean age was 54.6 years. There were significantly fewer women in the study (43.9% vs. 56.1%, p < 0.0001). Prevalent cardiovascular comorbidities were hypertension (31.9%), obesity (27.9%), hyperlipidemia (26.4%), smoking (18.9%), diabetes mellitus (17.2%), atherosclerotic disease (9.2%) and arrhythmia (5.0%). The most frequently reported constitutional symptoms of COVID-19 were fever (73.9%), fatigue (33.4%), malaise (29.9%), myalgia and/or arthralgia (19.2%), generalized weakness (19.0%), and chills (11.3%). For the cardiovascular system, chest pain and/or tightness were most often reported (19.6%), followed by palpitations (5.2%). Hypertension and diabetes were common in severe disease. Obesity and congestive heart failure were not observed in any non-severe cases. Severe cases compared to non-severe cases more frequently had fever (87.8% vs. 58.5%, p < 0.001), shortness of breath (47.4% vs. 20.6%, p < 0.001), cough (66.8% vs. 62.9%, p < 0.001), sputum production (35.4% vs. 26.5%, p < 0.001) and rhinorrhea (32.2% vs. 7.3%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Hypertension, diabetes, and atherosclerotic diseases are common comorbidities across the world, with obesity as the second most common in the US and more common in men.

Current utilization of interferon alpha for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019: A comprehensive review

Recent studies have identified an association between perturbed type I interferon (IFN) responses and the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). IFNα intervention may normalize the dysregulated innate immunity of COVID-19. However, details regarding its utilization and therapeutic evidence have yet to be systematically evaluated. The aim of this comprehensive review was to summarize the current utilization of IFNα for COVID-19 treatment and to explore the evidence on safety and efficacy. A comprehensive review of clinical studies in the literature prior to December 1st_, 2021, was performed to identify the current utilization of IFNα, which included details on the route of administration, the number of patients who received the treatment, the severity at the initiation of treatment, age range, the time from the onset of symptoms to treatment, dose, frequency, and duration as well as safety and efficacy. Encouragingly, no evidence was found against the safety of IFNα treatment for COVID-19. Early intervention, either within five days from the onset of symptoms or at hospital admission, confers better clinical outcomes, whereas late intervention may result in prolonged hospitalization.

The Spectrum of Antibiotic Prescribing During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Literature Review

Objectives: Over the last decades, there has been a significant increase in antimicrobial prescribing and consumption associated with the development of patients' adverse events and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) to the point of becoming a global priority. This study aims at evaluating antibiotic prescribing during COVID-19 pandemic from November 2019 to December 2020. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was conducted primarily through the NCBI database, using PRISMA guidelines to identify relevant literature for the period between November 1, 2019 and December 19, 2020, using the keywords: COVID-19 OR SARS-Cov-2 AND antibiotics restricted to the English language excluding nonclinical articles. Five hundred twenty-seven titles were identified; all articles fulfilling the study criteria were included, 133 through the NCBI, and 8 through Google Scholar with a combined total of 141 studies. The patient's spectrum included all ages from neonates to elderly with all associated comorbidities, including immune suppression. Results: Of 28,093 patients included in the combined studies, 58.7% received antibiotics (16,490/28,093), ranging from 1.3% to 100% coverage. Antibiotics coverage was less in children (57%) than in adults with comorbidities (75%). Broad-spectrum antibiotics were prescribed presumptively without pathogen identifications, which might contribute to adverse outcomes. Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a significant and wide range of antibiotic prescribing in patients affected by the disease, particularly in adults with underlying comorbidities, despite the paucity of evidence of associated bacterial infections. The current practice might increase patients' immediate and long-term risks of adverse events, susceptibility to secondary infections as well as aggravating AMR.

Silent Hypoxemia in Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Review

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, patients presented with COVID-19 pneumonia of varying severity. The phenomenon of severe hypoxemia without signs of respiratory distress is also known as silent or hidden hypoxemia. Although silent hypoxemia is not unique to pneumonia due to SARS-CoV-2 infection, this phenomenon is now recognized to be associated with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Proper management of critically ill patients is the key to reducing mortality. Herein, we summarize the possible and rare factors contributing to silent hypoxemia in patients with COVID-19. Microvascular thrombosis causes dead space ventilation in the lungs, and the flow of pulmonary capillaries is reduced, which leads to an imbalance in the V/Q ratio. The dissociation curve of oxyhemoglobin shifts to the left and limits the release of oxygen to the tissue. SARS-CoV-2 interferes with the synthesis of hemoglobin and reduces the ability to carry oxygen. The accumulation of endogenous carbon monoxide and carboxyhemoglobin will reduce the total oxygen carrying capacity and interfere with pulse oxygen saturation readings. There are also some non-specific factors that cause the difference between pulse oximetry and oxygen partial pressure. We propose some potentially more effective clinical alternatives and recommendations for optimizing the clinical management processes of patients with COVID-19. This review aims to describe the prevalence of silent hypoxemia in COVID-19 pneumonia, to provide an update on what is known of the pathophysiology, and to highlight the importance of diagnosing silent hypoxemia in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

COVID-19 and the Use of Immunomodulatory Agents in Ophthalmology

Immunomodulatory agents are often used in the systemic treatment of non-infectious uveitis. These drugs consist of corticosteroids, conventional immunosuppressives, and biological agents. As it is known that they suppress the immune system, the most important concern associated with immunomodulatory therapy (IMT) is the increased risk of infection. The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic on 11 March 2020. Although severe acute respiratory distress syndrome secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection may develop in all people, patients who receive IMT may be at higher risk in terms of both the transmission of the infection and more severe disease course. Therefore, guidelines on the management of patients receiving IMT due to uveitis during the pandemic are needed. In this review, we examined the immunomodulatory drugs used in the treatment of uveitis in terms of infectious complications and the data of patients who received IMT during the COVID-19 pandemic and discussed recommendations for the use of these drugs. According to the latest information, patients who receive IMT may continue their treatment as long as there are no disruptions in regular complete blood count (especially white blood cell count >4,000/μL) and liver and kidney function tests. Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 should be managed with a multidisciplinary approach.

The Interactive Management of the SARS-CoV-2 Virus: The Social Cohesion Index, a Methodological-Operational Proposal

This contribution places itself within the emergency context of the COVID-19 spread. Until medical research identifies a cure acting at an organic level, it is necessary to manage what the emergency generates among the members of the Community in interactive terms in a scientific and methodologically well-founded way. This is in order to promote, among the members of the Community, the pursuit of the common aim of reducing the spread of infection, with a view to community health as a whole. In addition, being at the level of interactions enables us to move towards a change of these interactions in response to the COVID-19 emergency, in order to manage what will happen in the future, in terms of changes in the interactive arrangements after the emergency itself. This becomes possible by shifting away from the use of deterministic-causal references to the use of the uncertainty of interaction as an epistemological foundation principle. Managing the interactive (and non-organic) fallout of the emergency in the Community is made possible by the formalisation of the interactive modalities (the Discursive Repertories) offered by Dialogical Science. To place oneself within this scientific panorama enables interaction measurements: so, the interaction measurement indexes offers a range of generative possibilities of realities built by the speeches of the Community members. Moreover, the Social Cohesion measurement index, in the area of Dialogical Science, makes available to public policies the shared measure of how and by how much the Community is moving towards the common purpose of reducing the contagion spread, rather than moving towards other personal and not shared goals (for instance, having a walk in spite of the lockdown). In this index, the interaction between the Discursive Repertories and the “cohesion weight” associated with them offers a Cohesion output: the data allow to manage operationally what happens in the Community in a shared way and in anticipation, without leaving the interactions between its members to chance. In this way, they can be directed towards the common purpose through appropriate interventions relevant to the interactive set-up described in the data. The Cohesion measure makes it possible to operate effectively and efficiently, thanks to the possibility of monitoring the progress of the interventions implemented and evaluating their effectiveness. In addition, the use of predictive Machine Learning models, applied to interactive cohesion data, allows for immediate and efficient availability of the measure itself, optimising time and resources.

Gastrointestinal symptoms, pathophysiology, and treatment in COVID-19

The novel coronavirus Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has emerged and is responsible for the Coronavirus Disease 2019 global pandemic. Coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2, are strongly associated with respiratory symptoms during infection, but gastrointestinal symptoms, such as diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, and abdominal pain, have been identified in subsets of COVID-19 patients. This article focuses on gastrointestinal symptoms and pathophysiology in COVID-19 disease. Evidence suggests that the gastrointestinal tract could be a viral target for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Not only is the SARS-CoV-2 receptor ACE2 highly expressed in the GI tract and is associated with digestive symptoms, but bleeding and inflammation are observed in the intestine of COVID-19 patients. We further systemically summarize the correlation between COVID-19 disease, gastrointestinal symptoms and intestinal microbiota. The potential oral-fecal transmission of COVID-19 was supported by viral RNA and live virus detection in the feces of COVID-19 patients. Additionally, the viral balance in the GI tract could be disordered during SARS-CoV-2 infection which could further impact the homeostasis of the gut microbial flora. Finally, we discuss the clinical and ongoing trials of treatments/therapies, including antiviral drugs, plasma transfusion and immunoglobulins, and diet supplementations for COVID-19. By reviewing the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 virus, and understanding the correlation among COVID-19, inflammation, intestinal microbiota, and lung microbiota, we provide perspective in prevention and control, as well as diagnosis and treatment of the COVID-19 disease.

Pathophysiological mechanisms underlying gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with COVID-19

Gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, such as diarrhea, abdominal pain, vomiting, and anorexia, are frequently observed in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the pathophysiological mechanisms connecting these GI symptoms to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections remain elusive. Previous studies indicate that the entry of SARS-CoV-2 into intestinal cells leads to downregulation of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors resulting in impaired barrier function. While intestinal ACE2 functions as a chaperone for the amino acid transporter B0AT1, the B0AT1/ACE2 complex within the intestinal epithelium acts as a regulator of gut microbiota composition and function. Alternations to the B0AT1/ACE2 complex lead to microbial dysbiosis through increased local and systemic immune responses. Previous studies have also suggested that altered serotonin metabolism may be the underlying cause of GI disorders involving diarrhea. The findings of elevated plasma serotonin levels and high fecal calprotectin in COVID-19 patients with diarrhea indicate that the viral infection evokes a systemic inflammatory response that specifically involves the GI. Interestingly, the elevated proinflammatory cytokines correlate with elevated serotonin and fecal calprotectin levels further supporting the evidence of GI inflammation, a hallmark of functional GI disorders. Moreover, the finding that rectal swabs of COVID-19 patients remain positive for SARS-CoV-2 even after the nasopharynx clears the virus, suggests that viral replication and shedding from the GI tract may be more robust than that of the respiratory tract, further indicating fecal-oral transmission as another important route of viral spread. This review summarized the evidence for pathophysiological mechanisms (impaired barrier function, gut inflammation, altered serotonin metabolism and gut microbiota dysbiosis) underlying the GI symptoms in patients with COVID-19.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are being investigated as potential therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of these interventions is required.  OBJECTIVES: Using a living systematic review approach, to assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform, and trial registries. Searches were done on 17 March 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. For safety assessments, we also included non-controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) if 500 or more participants were included. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of Bias 2' tool for RCTs, and for NRSIs, the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer. We rated the certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach, for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, improvement and worsening of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), development of severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease), quality of life (including fatigue and functional independence), grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies (12 RCTs, 1 NRSI) with 48,509 participants, of whom 41,880 received convalescent plasma. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We identified a further 100 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, and 33 studies reporting as being completed or terminated. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease Eleven RCTs and one NRSI investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 48,349 participants with moderate to severe disease. Nine RCTs compared convalescent plasma to placebo treatment or standard care alone, and two compared convalescent plasma to standard plasma (results not included in abstract). Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We included data on nine RCTs (12,875 participants) to assess the effectiveness of convalescent plasma compared to placebo or standard care alone.  Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 12,646 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on clinical improvement for all participants when assessed by liberation from respiratory support (RR not estimable; 8 RCTs, 12,682 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on the chance of being weaned or liberated from invasive mechanical ventilation for the subgroup of participants requiring invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.93; 2 RCTs, 630 participants; low-certainty evidence). It does not reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.08; 4 RCTs, 11,765 participants; high-certainty evidence). We did not identify any subgroup differences.  We did not identify any studies reporting quality of life, and therefore, do not know whether convalescent plasma has any impact on quality of life. One RCT assessed resolution of fatigue on day 7, but we are very uncertain about the effect (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.42; 309 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Safety of convalescent plasma We included results from eight RCTs, and one NRSI, to assess the safety of convalescent plasma. Some of the RCTs reported on safety data only for the convalescent plasma group.  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma increases or reduces the risk of grade 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.41; 4 RCTs, 905 participants; low-certainty evidence), and serious adverse events (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.90; 2 RCTs, 414 participants; low-certainty evidence).  A summary of reported events of the NRSI (reporting safety data for 20,000 of 35,322 transfused participants), and four RCTs reporting safety data only for transfused participants (6125 participants) are included in the full text. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and asymptomatic or mild disease We identified one RCT reporting on 160 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo treatment (saline).  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We are very uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on all-cause mortality (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.65; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on developing severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR not estimable; low-certainty evidence).  We identified no study reporting quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma We do not know whether convalescent plasma is associated with a higher risk of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (very low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). This is a living systematic review. We search weekly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have high certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for the treatment of individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on measures of clinical improvement. We are uncertain about the adverse effects of convalescent plasma. While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, heterogeneous reporting of outcomes is still problematic. There are 100 ongoing studies and 33 studies reporting in a study registry as being completed or terminated. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around hyperimmune immunoglobulin therapy for people with any disease severity, and convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

SARS-CoV-2 Serological testing in frontline health workers in Zimbabwe

Background

In order to protect health workers from SARS-CoV-2, there is need to characterise the different types of patient facing health workers. Our first aim was to determine both the infection status and seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in health workers. Our second aim was to evaluate the occupational and demographic predictors of seropositivity to inform the country’s infection prevention and control (IPC) strategy.

Methods and principal findings

We invited 713 staff members at 24 out of 35 health facilities in the City of Bulawayo in Zimbabwe. Compliance to testing was defined as the willingness to uptake COVID-19 testing by answering a questionnaire and providing samples for both antibody testing and PCR testing. SARS-COV-2 antibodies were detected using a rapid diagnostic test kit and SAR-COV-2 infection was determined by real-time (RT)-PCR. Of the 713 participants, 635(89%) consented to answering the questionnaire and providing blood sample for antibody testing while 560 (78.5%) agreed to provide nasopharyngeal swabs for the PCR SARS-CoV-2 testing. Of the 635 people (aged 18–73) providing a blood sample 39.1% reported a history of past COVID-19 symptoms while 14.2% reported having current symptoms of COVID-19. The most-prevalent co-morbidity among this group was hypertension (22.0%) followed by asthma (7.0%) and diabetes (6.0%). The SARS-CoV-2 sero-prevalence was 8.9%. Of the 560 participants tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection, 2 participants (0.36%) were positive for SAR-CoV-2 infection by PCR testing. None of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive people were positive for SAR-CoV-2 infection by PCR testing.

Conclusion and interpretation

In addition to clinical staff, several patient-facing health workers were characterised within Zimbabwe’s health system and the seroprevalence data indicated that previous exposure to SAR-CoV-2 had occurred across the full spectrum of patient-facing staff with nurses and nurse aides having the highest seroprevalence. Our results highlight the need for including the various health workers in IPC strategies in health centres to ensure effective biosecurity and biosafety.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has reinforced that health workers are critical for the functioning of a health system and that they need to be protected from infection. To provide biosecurity and biosafety for health workers for SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention and control (IPC), it is critical to identify who the patient-facing health workers are in a specific health system. We therefore conducted our study in Zimbabwe to characterise the different workers coming into contact with patients and their exposure to COVID-19. The health workers were defined by occupation and work station within the health centre. The study showed that over 75.0% of the health workers were female, and that the largest group of patient-facing health workers were nurses who constituted 45.3% of the workforce. The largest group, 43.0% of the workforce, was based in the clinical wards. Sero-reactivity among these health workers was 8.9% with the highest prevalence being in the nurses. Two participants (0.36%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR testing. None of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive people were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR testing.

Impact of Corticosteroids in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Since its appearance in late 2019, infections caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 have created unprecedented challenges for health systems worldwide. Multiple therapeutic options have been explored, including corticosteroids. Preliminary results of corticosteroids in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are encouraging; however, the role of corticosteroids remains controversial.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the impact of corticosteroids in mortality, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and viral shedding in COVID-19 patients?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of literature on corticosteroids and COVID-19 in major databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE) of published literature through July 22, 2020, that report outcomes of interest in COVID-19 patients receiving corticosteroids with a comparative group.

RESULTS

A total of 73 studies with 21,350 COVID-19 patients were identified. Corticosteroid use was reported widely in mechanically ventilated patients (35.3%), ICU patients (51.3%), and severe COVID-19 patients (40%). Corticosteroids showed mortality benefit in severelly ill COVID-19 patients (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.83; P = .0006); however, no beneficial or harmful effects were noted among high-dose or low-dose corticosteroid regimens. Emerging evidence shows that low-dose corticosteroids do not have a significant impact in the duration of SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding. The analysis was limited by highly heterogeneous literature for high-dose and low-dose corticosteroids regimens.

INTERPRETATION

Our results showed evidence of mortality benefit in severely ill COVID-19 patients treated with corticosteroids. Corticosteroids are used widely in COVID-19 patients worldwide, and a rapidly developing global pandemic warrants further high-quality clinical trials to define the most beneficial timing and dosing for corticosteroids.

Gastroenterological and hepatic manifestations of patients with COVID-19, prevalence, mortality by country, and intensive care admission rate: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 usually report fever and respiratory symptoms. However, multiple gastrointestinal (GI) manifestations such as diarrhoea and abdominal pain have been described. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of GI symptoms, elevated liver enzymes and mortality of patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies that included a cohort of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 were performed from 1 December 2019 to 15 December 2020. Data were collected by conducting a literature search using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We analysed pooled data on the prevalence of individual GI symptoms and elevated liver enzymes and performed subanalyses to investigate the relationship between GI symptoms/elevated liver enzymes, geographical location, mortality, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

RESULTS

The available data of 78 798 patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 from 158 studies were included in our analysis. The most frequent manifestations were diarrhoea (16.5%, 95% CI 14.2% to 18.4%), nausea (9.7%, 95% CI 9.0% to 13.2%) and elevated liver enzymes (5.6%, 95% CI 4.2% to 9.1%). The overall mortality and GI mortality were 23.5% (95% CI 21.2% to 26.1%) and 3.5% (95% CI 3.1% to 6.2%), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed non-statistically significant associations between GI symptoms/elevated liver enzymes and ICU admissions (OR=1.01, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.83). The GI mortality was 0.9% (95% CI 0.5% to 2.2%) in China and 10.8% (95% CI 7.8% to 11.3%) in the USA.

CONCLUSION

GI symptoms/elevated liver enzymes are common in patients with COVID-19. Our subanalyses showed that the presence of GI symptoms/elevated liver enzymes does not appear to affect mortality or ICU admission rate. Furthermore, the proportion of GI mortality among patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 varied based on geographical location.

Towards a sensitive and accurate interpretation of molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2: a rapid review of 264 studies

BackgroundSensitive molecular diagnostics and correct test interpretation are crucial for accurate COVID-19 diagnosis and thereby essential for good clinical practice. Furthermore, they are a key factor in outbreak control where active case finding in combination with isolation and contact tracing are crucial.AimWith the objective to inform the public health and laboratory responses to the pandemic, we reviewed current published knowledge on the kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 infection as assessed by RNA molecular detection in a wide range of clinical samples.MethodsWe performed an extensive search on studies published between 1 December 2019 and 15 May 2020, reporting on molecular detection and/or isolation of SARS-CoV-2 in any human laboratory specimen.ResultsWe compiled a dataset of 264 studies including 32,515 COVID-19 cases, and additionally aggregated data points (n = 2,777) from sampling of 217 adults with known infection timeline. We summarised data on SARS-CoV-2 detection in the respiratory and gastrointestinal tract, blood, oral fluid, tears, cerebrospinal fluid, peritoneal fluid, semen, vaginal fluid; where provided, we also summarised specific observations on SARS-CoV-2 detection in pregnancy, infancy, children, adolescents and immunocompromised individuals.ConclusionOptimal SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing relies on choosing the most appropriate sample type, collected with adequate sampling technique, and with the infection timeline in mind. We outlined knowledge gaps and directions for future well-documented systematic studies.

Association of Gastrointestinal System With Severity and Mortality of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

At present, the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is causing a major pandemic. COVID-19 is caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In COVID-19, the patient usually presents with fever, dry cough, and respiratory manifestations. However, the involvement of other systems has also been reported in the literature. Abdominal pain, diarrhea, vomiting, and nausea are the predominant gastrointestinal (GI) manifestations underlined in the literature. We conducted a literature search using four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Clinicaltrials.gov). Our search strategy included Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords for COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, and GI system from inception to October 2020. After excluding duplicates, review articles, and non-relevant articles, we included 20 studies out of 842 articles reporting GI manifestations in COVID-19 patients. Using Cochrane RevMan version 5.4 (Cochrane, London, UK), a compute pooled analysis using a random-effect model was performed. Our study included 6,022 patients with a median age of 49.5 years. Pooled analysis via random effect model revealed an increased risk of severe COVID-19 in patients manifesting GI symptoms with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.07 (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.34-3.18) with I²=41%). Odds of mortality in COVID-19 with GI manifestation and hepatic abnormalities included 0.92 (95% CI: 0.50-1.69) (I²=57%) and 1.26 (95% CI: 0.67-2.37) (I²=0%), respectively. Severe COVID-19 may have a strong association with GI manifestations and have a significant impact on GI practice. Holistic knowledge of the spectrum of the GI consequences in COVID-19 is crucial to get a hold of virus spread. In this article, we have summarized the association of GI manifestations in severe COVID-19 patients.

Viral targets for vaccines against COVID-19

Vaccines are urgently needed to control the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to help the return to pre-pandemic normalcy. A great many vaccine candidates are being developed, several of which have completed late-stage clinical trials and are reporting positive results. In this Progress article, we discuss which viral elements are used in COVID-19 vaccine candidates, why they might act as good targets for the immune system and the implications for protective immunity.

Gastrointestinal and hepatic manifestations of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and Aim

This review investigates the role of gastrointestinal and hepatic manifestations in COVID-19, particularly with regard to the prevalence of isolated gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library for COVID-19 publications from 1 December 2019 to 18 May 2020. We included any study that reported the presence of GI symptoms in a sample of >5 COVID-19 patients. Data collection and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Where ≥3 studies reported data sufficiently similar to allow calculation of a pooled prevalence, we performed random effects meta-analysis.

Results

This review included 17 776 COVID-19 patients from 108 studies. Isolated GI symptoms only occurred in 1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0-6%) of patients. GI symptoms were reported in 20% (95% CI 15-24%) of patients. The most common were anorexia (21%, 95% CI 15-27%), diarrhea (13%, 95% CI 11-16%), nausea or vomiting (8%, 95% CI 6-11%), and abdominal pain (4%, 95% CI 2-6%). Transaminase elevations were present in 24% (95% CI 17-31%) of patients. Higher prevalence of GI symptoms were reported in studies published after 1st April, with prevalence of diarrhea 16% (95% CI 13-20), nausea or vomiting 12% (95% CI 8-16%), and any GI symptoms 24% (95% CI 18-34%). GI symptoms were associated with severe COVID-19 disease (odds ratio [OR] 2.1, 95% CI 1.3-3.2), but not mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52-1.54).

Conclusions

Patients with isolated GI symptoms may represent a small but significant portion of COVID-19 cases. When testing resources are abundant, clinicians should still consider testing patients with isolated GI symptoms or unexplained transaminase elevations for COVID-19. More recent studies estimate higher overall GI involvement in COVID-19 than was previously recognized.

Optimized and Non-Optimized Personal Protective Equipment Use during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Thailand: A National Cross-Sectional Survey in a Resource-Limited Setting

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV2). COVID-19 is highly contagious, potentially fatal, and a global public health concern. Combining optimized personal protective equipment (PPE) use and hand hygiene is the best strategy for preventing COVID-19 in health care workers (HCWs).

METHODS

We conducted a national cross-sectional web-based survey of HCWs in the infection control program (IPC) in Thailand between May 5, 2020 and May 15, 2020. The primary objective was the prevalence of optimized PPE use amongst HCWs. The secondary objective was identification of the independent predictors of optimized PPE use.

RESULTS

We received a response from 46% of HCWs (756/1650), and all those who responded were nurse or HCWs who were registered in the IPC network. Five HCWs were excluded because of missing data, and 751 were included in the final analysis. The prevalences of PPE use were 22% (168/751) for optimized PPE use, 78% (583/751) for non-optimized PPE use, 35% (263/751) for PPE overuse, and 43% (320/751) for PPE underused. In univariate analysis, optimized PPE use was significantly associated with age, education level, knowledge of appropriate negative pressure room selection, and knowledge of apparently milder symptom severity in children than adults. In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of optimized PPE use were knowledge of appropriate negative pressure room selection (aOR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.18-3.22), the difference in symptom severity between children and adults (aOR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.37-0.81), and education level (aOR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.04-2.27).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of optimized PPE use amongst HCWs was 22%. Independent predictors of optimized PPE use were COVID-19 knowledge-based factors and education level. Therefore, the continued education training program should be implemented to ensure maintenance of appropriate practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for COVID-19: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

A false-negative case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is defined as a person with suspected infection and an initial negative result by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, with a positive result on a subsequent test. False-negative cases have important implications for isolation and risk of transmission of infected people and for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to review and critically appraise evidence about the rate of RT-PCR false-negatives at initial testing for COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, as well as COVID-19 repositories, including the EPPI-Centre living systematic map of evidence about COVID-19 and the Coronavirus Open Access Project living evidence database. Two authors independently screened and selected studies according to the eligibility criteria and collected data from the included studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We calculated the proportion of false-negative test results using a multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression model. The certainty of the evidence about false-negative cases was rated using the GRADE approach for tests and strategies. All information in this article is current up to July 17, 2020.

RESULTS

We included 34 studies enrolling 12,057 COVID-19 confirmed cases. All studies were affected by several risks of bias and applicability concerns. The pooled estimate of false-negative proportion was highly affected by unexplained heterogeneity (tau-squared = 1.39; 90% prediction interval from 0.02 to 0.54). The certainty of the evidence was judged as very low due to the risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency issues.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial and largely unexplained heterogeneity in the proportion of false-negative RT-PCR results. The collected evidence has several limitations, including risk of bias issues, high heterogeneity, and concerns about its applicability. Nonetheless, our findings reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-Cov-2 infection given that up to 54% of COVID-19 patients may have an initial false-negative RT-PCR (very low certainty of evidence).

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Protocol available on the OSF website: https://tinyurl.com/vvbgqya.

False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for COVID-19: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

A false-negative case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is defined as a person with suspected infection and an initial negative result by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, with a positive result on a subsequent test. False-negative cases have important implications for isolation and risk of transmission of infected people and for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to review and critically appraise evidence about the rate of RT-PCR false-negatives at initial testing for COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, as well as COVID-19 repositories, including the EPPI-Centre living systematic map of evidence about COVID-19 and the Coronavirus Open Access Project living evidence database. Two authors independently screened and selected studies according to the eligibility criteria and collected data from the included studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We calculated the proportion of false-negative test results using a multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression model. The certainty of the evidence about false-negative cases was rated using the GRADE approach for tests and strategies. All information in this article is current up to July 17, 2020.

RESULTS

We included 34 studies enrolling 12,057 COVID-19 confirmed cases. All studies were affected by several risks of bias and applicability concerns. The pooled estimate of false-negative proportion was highly affected by unexplained heterogeneity (tau-squared = 1.39; 90% prediction interval from 0.02 to 0.54). The certainty of the evidence was judged as very low due to the risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency issues.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial and largely unexplained heterogeneity in the proportion of false-negative RT-PCR results. The collected evidence has several limitations, including risk of bias issues, high heterogeneity, and concerns about its applicability. Nonetheless, our findings reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-Cov-2 infection given that up to 54% of COVID-19 patients may have an initial false-negative RT-PCR (very low certainty of evidence).

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Protocol available on the OSF website: https://tinyurl.com/vvbgqya.

Information technology in emergency management of COVID-19 outbreak

Emergency management of the emerging infectious disease outbreak is critical for public health threats. Currently, control of the COVID-19 outbreak is an international concern and has become a crucial challenge in many countries. This article reviews significant information technologyIT) applications in emergency management of COVID-19 by considering the prevention/mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery phases of the crisis. This review was conducted using MEDLINE PubMed), Embase, IEEE, and Google Scholar. Expert opinions were collected to show existence gaps, useful technologies for each phase of emergency management, and future direction. Results indicated that various IT-based systems such as surveillance systems, artificial intelligence, computational methods, Internet of things, remote sensing sensor, online service, and GIS geographic information system) could have different outbreak management applications, especially in response phases. Information technology was applied in several aspects, such as increasing the accuracy of diagnosis, early detection, ensuring healthcare providers' safety, decreasing workload, saving time and cost, and drug discovery. We categorized these applications into four core topics, including diagnosis and prediction, treatment, protection, and management goals, which were confirmed by five experts. Without applying IT, the control and management of the crisis could be difficult on a large scale. For reducing and improving the hazard effect of disaster situations, the role of IT is inevitable. In addition to the response phase, communities should be considered to use IT capabilities in prevention, preparedness, and recovery phases. It is expected that IT will have an influential role in the recovery phase of COVID-19. Providing IT infrastructure and financial support by the governments should be more considered in facilitating IT capabilities.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required.  OBJECTIVES: To continually assess, as more evidence becomes available, whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in treatment of people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trial registries to identify completed and ongoing studies on 19 August 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of study design, disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2.0 tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), and the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-controlled NRSIs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at hospital discharge, mortality (time to event), improvement of clinical symptoms (7, 15, and 30 days after transfusion), grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs).

MAIN RESULTS

This is the second living update of our review. We included 19 studies (2 RCTs, 8 controlled NRSIs, 9 non-controlled NRSIs) with 38,160 participants, of whom 36,081 received convalescent plasma. Two completed RCTs are awaiting assessment (published after 19 August 2020). We identified a further 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are randomised (3 reported in a study registry as already being completed, but without results). We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We did not include data from controlled NRSIs in data synthesis because of critical risk of bias. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low, due to study limitations and results including both potential benefits and harms.  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19  We included results from two RCTs (both stopped early) with 189 participants, of whom 95 received convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.34; 1 RCT, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence).  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases mortality (time to event) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.25; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may result in little to no difference in improvement of clinical symptoms (i.e. need for respiratory support) at seven days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19; 1 RCT, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may increase improvement of clinical symptoms at up to 15 days (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.11; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence), and at up to 30 days (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43; 2 studies, 188 participants; low-certainty evidence).  No studies reported on quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from two RCTs, eight controlled NRSIs and nine non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of safety data and duration of follow-up was variable. The controlled studies reported on AEs and SAEs only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. Some, but not all, studies included death as a SAE.  The studies did not report the grade of AEs. Fourteen studies (566 participants) reported on AEs of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these AEs were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe AEs (very low-certainty evidence).  17 studies (35,944 participants) assessed SAEs for 20,622 of its participants. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (20,000 participants), which reported on SAEs within the first four hours and within an additional seven days after transfusion. There were 63 deaths, 12 were possibly and one was probably related to transfusion. There were 146 SAEs within four hours and 1136 SAEs within seven days post-transfusion. These were predominantly allergic or respiratory, thrombotic or thromboembolic and cardiac events. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy results in a clinically relevant increased risk of SAEs (low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. There was limited information regarding grade 3 and 4 AEs to determine the effect of convalescent plasma therapy on clinically relevant SAEs. In the absence of a control group, we are unable to assess the relative safety of convalescent plasma therapy.  While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies is problematic. The early termination of the first two RCTs investigating convalescent plasma, and the lack of data from 20 studies that have completed or were due to complete at the time of this update illustrate these challenges. Well-designed studies should be prioritised. Moreover, studies should report outcomes in the same way, and should consider the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms.  There are 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are RCTs (three already completed). This is the second living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. Future updates may show different results to those reported here.

Coronaviruses and Nature's Pharmacy for the Relief of Coronavirus Disease 2019

Current challenges to the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 should open new prospects in the search for novel drugs from medicinal plants and other natural products. This paper provides details of natural agents that inhibit human coronavirus entry into cells, general replication, and specific chymotrypsin-like protease (3CL^pro)-mediated replication. Medicinal plants, fungi, and marine organisms as remedies for human coronaviruses in China, Lebanon, Malaysia, Singapore, and South Africa are described. Common species include Alnus japonica (Thunb.) Steud., Artemisia annua L., Artemisia apiacea Hance, Astragalus membranaceus (Fisch.) Bunge, Cinnamomum cassia (L.) J.Presl, edible brown algae Ecklonia cava Kjellman, Euphorbia neriifolia L., Glycyrrhiza glabra L., Lonicera japonica Thunb., Pelargonium sidoides DC., Polygonum cuspidatum Siebold & Zucc., Sanguisorba officinalis L., Scutellaria baicalensis Georgi, Toona sinensis (Juss.) M.Roem., and Torreya nucifera (L.) Siebold & Zucc. At least fifty natural compounds, including alkaloids, flavonoids, glycosides, anthraquinones, lignins, and tannins, which inhibit various strains of human coronaviruses, are presented. Given the scarcity of efficacious and safe vaccines or drugs for coronavirus disease 2019, natural products are low-hanging fruits that should be harnessed as the new global frontier against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

Associations between serum amyloid A, interleukin-6, and COVID-19: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Serum amyloid A (SAA), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) play critical roles in inflammation and are used in clinical laboratories as indicators of inflammation-related diseases. We aimed to provide potential laboratory basis for auxiliary distinguishing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) by monitoring above indicators.

METHODS

A total of 84 patients with confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled in the study. Baseline characteristics and laboratory results were collected and analyzed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to combined detection of SAA and IL-6 in patients with COVID-19, and independent risk factors for severity of COVID-19 were assessed by using binary logistic regression.

RESULTS

The main clinical symptoms of patients with COVID-19 were fever (98.8%), fatigue (61.9%), and dry cough (58.3%). SAA, IL-6, and NLR were significantly higher in patients with COVID-19 (all P < .001), and compared with nonsevere patients, three indicators of severe patients were significantly elevated. Besides, combined detection of SAA and IL-6 better separates healthy people from patients with COVID-19 than detection of SAA or IL-6 alone. In addition, elevated SAA, IL-6, and NLR can be used as independent variables for predicting the severity of patients with COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

Serum amyloid A and IL-6 could be used as addition parameters to helping the distinguish of patients with COVID-19 from healthy people, and can provide potential basis for separating patients with nonsevere and severe clinical signs.

Gastrointestinal insights during the COVID-19 epidemic

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has so far caused hundreds of mortalities worldwide. Although respiratory symptoms are the main complication in COVID-19 patients, the disease is also associated with gastrointestinal problems, with diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting being primary COVID-19 symptoms. Thus, cancer and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management, stool viral tests, and virus exposure are major concerns in the context of COVID-19 epidemic. In patients with colorectal cancer and IBD, the colonic mucosa exhibits elevated angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor levels, enhancing COVID-19 susceptibility. In some cases, positive viral stool tests may be the only indicator of infection at admission or after leaving quarantine. Without supplemental stool tests, the risk of undetected COVID-19 transmission is high. Moreover, viral exposure during the regular or emergency endoscopic examination should be avoided. We carefully discuss key gastrointestinal concerns with regard to COVID-19 and call for more attention to such problems.

Laboratory Tests and Outcome for Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and poses substantial challenges for healthcare systems. With a vastly expanding number of publications on COVID-19, clinicians need evidence synthesis to produce guidance for handling patients with COVID-19. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we examine which routine laboratory tests are associated with severe COVID-19 disease.

CONTENT

PubMed (Medline), Scopus, and Web of Science were searched until March 22, 2020, for studies on COVID-19. Eligible studies were original articles reporting on laboratory tests and outcome of patients with COVID-19. Data were synthesized, and we conducted random-effects meta-analysis, and determined mean difference (MD) and standard mean difference at the biomarker level for disease severity. Risk of bias and applicability concerns were evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2.

SUMMARY

45 studies were included, of which 21 publications were used for the meta-analysis. Studies were heterogeneous but had low risk of bias and applicability concern in terms of patient selection and reference standard. Severe disease was associated with higher white blood cell count (MD, 1.28 ×109/L), neutrophil count (MD, 1.49 ×109/L), C-reactive protein (MD, 49.2 mg/L), lactate dehydrogenase (MD, 196 U/L), D-dimer (standardized MD, 0.58), and aspartate aminotransferase (MD, 8.5 U/L); all p < 0.001. Furthermore, low lymphocyte count (MD -0.32 × 109/L), platelet count (MD -22.4 × 109/L), and hemoglobin (MD, -4.1 g/L); all p < 0.001 were also associated with severe disease. In conclusion, several routine laboratory tests are associated with disease severity in COVID-19.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in management of COVID-19; A systematic review on current evidence

BACKGROUND

Since there is still no definitive conclusion regarding which non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are most effective and safe in viral respiratory infections, we decided to evaluate the efficacy and safety of various NSAIDs in viral respiratory infections so that we can reach a conclusion on which NSAID is best choice for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

A search was performed in Medline (via PubMed), Embase and CENTRAL databases until 23 March 2020. Clinical trials on application of NSAIDs in viral respiratory infections were included.

RESULTS

Six clinical trials were included. No clinical trial has been performed on COVID-19, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome infections. Studies show that ibuprofen and naproxen not only have positive effects in controlling cold symptoms, but also do not cause serious side effects in rhinovirus infections. In addition, it was found that clarithromycin, naproxen and oseltamivir combination leads to decrease in mortality rate and duration of hospitalisation in patients with pneumonia caused by influenza.

CONCLUSION

Although based on existing evidence, NSAIDs have been effective in treating respiratory infections caused by influenza and rhinovirus, since there is no clinical trial on COVID-19 and case-reports and clinical experiences are indicative of elongation of treatment duration and exacerbation of the clinical course of patients with COVID-19, it is recommended to use substitutes such as acetaminophen for controlling fever and inflammation and be cautious about using NSAIDs in management of COVID-19 patients until there are enough evidence. Naproxen may be a good choice for future clinical trials.

Corticosteroids on the Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background:

We aimed to examine the available evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids on the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV).

Method:

An extensive search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and Central databases until the end of March 2020, using keywords related to corticosteroids, COVID-19, SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. The main outcome was considered to be the mortality rate, length of stay, virus clearance time, symptom improvement, and lung function improvement. The findings are presented as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI).

Results:

Fifteen paper compromising 5 studies on COVID-19, 8 studies on SARS-CoV and 2 studies on MERS-CoV were included. One study was clinical trial and the rest were cohort. The analyses showed that corticosteroids were not reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19 (OR=1.08; 95% CI: 0.34 to 3.50) and SARS-CoV (OR=0.77; 95% CI: 0.34 to 1.3) patients, while they were associated with higher mortality rate of patients with MERS-CoV (OR = 2.52; 95% CI: 1.41 to 4.50). Moreover, it appears that corticosteroids administration would not be effective in shortening viral clearance time, length of hospitalization, and duration of relief symptoms following viral severe acute respiratory infections.

Conclusion:

There is no evidences that corticosteroids are safe and effective on the treatment of severe acute respiratory infection when COVID-19 disease is suspected. Therefore, corticosteroids prescription in COVID-19 patients should be avoided.

Prevalence and Mortality of COVID-19 Patients With Gastrointestinal Symptoms: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the prevalence of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosed.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus was performed from December 1, 2019 to May 7, 2020. Observational studies including adults with COVID-19 infection and reporting GI symptoms were included. The primary outcome was assessing the weighted pooled prevalence (WPP) of GI symptoms in patients with COVID-19 infection. Secondary outcomes were WPP of overall mortality, and mortality in patients with COVID-19 infection with GI symptoms.

RESULTS

A total of 78 studies with 12,797 patients were included. Among GI symptoms (at onset of illness in 6, at admission in 17, data given separately for both in 3, and data unavailable in 52 studies), the WPP of diarrhea was 12.4% (95% CI, 8.2% to 17.1%), I2=94%; nausea and/or vomiting, 9.0% (95% CI, 5.5% to 12.9%), I2=93%; loss of appetite, 22.3% (95% CI, 11.2% to 34.6%, I2=94%; and abdominal pain, 6.2% (95% CI, 2.6% to 10.3%), I2=92%. Mortality among patients with GI symptoms (0.4%; 95% CI, 0% to 1.1%; I2=74%) was similar to overall mortality (2.1%; 95% CI, 0.2% to 4.7%; I2=94%), P=.15. Most studies had high risk of bias and overall quality of evidence was low to very low for all outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Gastrointestinal symptoms are seen in up to 1 in 5 patients with COVID-19 infection. More high-quality evidence is needed to confirm these findings and explore factors causing mortality in these patients.

Correlation between gastrointestinal symptoms and disease severity in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To study the correlation between gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and disease severity in patients with COVID-19.

Design

We searched six databases including three Chinese and three English databases for all the published articles on COVID-19. Studies were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The relevant data were extracted and all the statistical analyses were performed using Revman5.3.

Result

In a meta-analysis of 9 studies, comprising 3022 patients, 479 patients (13.7%, 95% CI 0.125 to 0.149) had severe disease and 624 patients (14.7%, 95% CI 0.136 to 0.159) had GI symptoms. Of 624 patients with GI symptoms, 118 patients had severe disease (20.5%, 95% CI 0.133 to 0.276) and of 2397 cases without GI symptoms, 361 patients had severe disease (18.2%, 95% CI 0.129 to 0.235). Comparing disease severity of patients with and without GI symptoms, the results indicated: I²=62%, OR=1.21, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.56, p=0.13; there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. The funnel plot was symmetrical with no publication bias.

Conclusion

Current results are not sufficient to demonstrate a significant correlation between GI symptoms and disease severity in patients with COVID-19.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required.  OBJECTIVES: To continually assess, as more evidence becomes available, whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in treatment of people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trial registries to identify completed and ongoing studies on 4 June 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of study design, disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), and the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-controlled NRSIs.  MAIN RESULTS: This is the first living update of our review. We included 20 studies (1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs, 16 non-controlled NRSIs) with 5443 participants, of whom 5211 received convalescent plasma, and identified a further 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are randomised. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. Overall risk of bias of included studies was high, due to study design, type of participants, and other previous or concurrent treatments. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19  We included results from four controlled studies (1 RCT (stopped early) with 103 participants, of whom 52 received convalescent plasma; and 3 controlled NRSIs with 236 participants, of whom 55 received convalescent plasma) to assess effectiveness of convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge (1 controlled NRSI, 21 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.31; very low-certainty evidence). Time to death (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma prolongs time to death (RCT: hazard ratio (HR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.82; controlled NRSI: HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96; very low-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical symptoms, assessed by need for respiratory support (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on improvement of clinical symptoms at seven days (RCT: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19), 14 days (RCT: RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.77; controlled NRSI: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.29), and 28 days (RCT: RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.81; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life No studies reported this outcome.  Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from 1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs and 10 non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of adverse events and serious adverse events was variable. The controlled studies reported on adverse events and serious adverse events only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. The duration of follow-up varied. Some, but not all, studies included death as a serious adverse event.  Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (13 studies, 201 participants) The studies did not report the grade of adverse events. Thirteen studies (201 participants) reported on adverse events of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these adverse events were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe adverse events (very low-certainty evidence).  Serious adverse events (14 studies, 5201 participants)  Fourteen studies (5201 participants) reported on serious adverse events. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (5000 participants), which reported only on serious adverse events limited to the first four hours after convalescent plasma transfusion. This study included death as a serious adverse event; they reported 15 deaths, four of which they classified as potentially, probably or definitely related to transfusion. Other serious adverse events reported in all studies were predominantly allergic or respiratory in nature, including anaphylaxis, transfusion-associated dyspnoea, and transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI). We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma affects the number of serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. For safety outcomes we also included non-controlled NRSIs. There was limited information regarding adverse events. Of the controlled studies, none reported on this outcome in the control group. There is only very low-certainty evidence for safety of convalescent plasma for COVID-19.  While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, problems with recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies are conceivable. The early termination of the first RCT investigating convalescent plasma, and the multitude of studies registered in the past months illustrate this. It is therefore necessary to critically assess the design of these registered studies, and well-designed studies should be prioritised. Other considerations for these studies are the need to report outcomes for all study arms in the same way, and the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms.  There are 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are RCTs. This is the first living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. These updates may show different results to those reported here.

Manifestations and prognosis of gastrointestinal and liver involvement in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The prevalence and prognosis of digestive system involvement, including gastrointestinal symptoms and liver injury, in patients with COVID-19 remains largely unknown. We aimed to quantify the effects of COVID-19 on the digestive system.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published between Jan 1, 2020, and April 4, 2020. The websites of WHO, CDC, and major journals were also searched. We included studies that reported the epidemiological and clinical features of COVID-19 and the prevalence of gastrointestinal findings in infected patients, and excluded preprints, duplicate publications, reviews, editorials, single case reports, studies pertaining to other coronavirus-related illnesses, and small case series (<10 cases). Extracted data included author; date; study design; country; patient demographics; number of participants in severe and non-severe disease groups; prevalence of clinical gastrointestinal symptoms such as vomiting, nausea, diarrhoea, loss of appetite, abdominal pain, and belching; and digestive system comorbidities including liver disease and gastrointestinal diseases. Raw data from studies were pooled to determine effect estimates.

FINDINGS

We analysed findings from 35 studies, including 6686 patients with COVID-19, that met inclusion criteria. 29 studies (n=6064) reported gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with COVID-19 at diagnosis, and the pooled prevalence of digestive system comorbidities was 4% (95% CI 2-5; range 0-15; I²=74%). The pooled prevalence of digestive symptoms was 15% (10-21; range: 2-57; I²=96%) with nausea or vomiting, diarrhoea, and loss of appetite being the three most common symptoms. The pooled prevalence of abnormal liver functions (12 studies, n=1267) was 19% (9-32; range 1-53; I²=96%). Subgroup analysis showed patients with severe COVID-19 had higher rates of abdominal pain (odds ratio [OR] 7·10 [95% CI 1·93-26·07]; p=0·003; I²=0%) and abnormal liver function including increased ALT (1·89 [1·30-2·76]; p=0·0009; I²=10%) and increased AST (3·08 [2·14-4·42]; p<0·00001; I²=0%) compared with those with non-severe disease. Patients in Hubei province, where the initial COVID-19 outbreak occurred, were more likely to present with abnormal liver functions (p<0·0001) compared with those outside of Hubei. Paediatric patients with COVID-19 had a similar prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms to those of adult patients. 10% (95% CI 4-19; range 3-23; I²=97%) of patients presented with gastrointestinal symptoms alone without respiratory features. Patients who presented with gastrointestinal system involvement had delayed diagnosis (standardised mean difference 2·85 [95% CI 0·22-5·48]; p=0·030; I²=73%). Patients with gastrointestinal involvement tended to have a poorer disease course (eg, acute respiratory distress syndrome OR 2·96 [95% CI 1·17-7·48]; p=0·02; I²=0%).

INTERPRETATION

Our study showed that digestive symptoms and liver injury are not uncommon in patients with COVID-19. Increased attention should be paid to the care of this unique group of patients.

FUNDING

None.

Manifestations and prognosis of gastrointestinal and liver involvement in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The prevalence and prognosis of digestive system involvement, including gastrointestinal symptoms and liver injury, in patients with COVID-19 remains largely unknown. We aimed to quantify the effects of COVID-19 on the digestive system.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published between Jan 1, 2020, and April 4, 2020. The websites of WHO, CDC, and major journals were also searched. We included studies that reported the epidemiological and clinical features of COVID-19 and the prevalence of gastrointestinal findings in infected patients, and excluded preprints, duplicate publications, reviews, editorials, single case reports, studies pertaining to other coronavirus-related illnesses, and small case series (<10 cases). Extracted data included author; date; study design; country; patient demographics; number of participants in severe and non-severe disease groups; prevalence of clinical gastrointestinal symptoms such as vomiting, nausea, diarrhoea, loss of appetite, abdominal pain, and belching; and digestive system comorbidities including liver disease and gastrointestinal diseases. Raw data from studies were pooled to determine effect estimates.

FINDINGS

We analysed findings from 35 studies, including 6686 patients with COVID-19, that met inclusion criteria. 29 studies (n=6064) reported gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with COVID-19 at diagnosis, and the pooled prevalence of digestive system comorbidities was 4% (95% CI 2-5; range 0-15; I2=74%). The pooled prevalence of digestive symptoms was 15% (10-21; range: 2-57; I2=96%) with nausea or vomiting, diarrhoea, and loss of appetite being the three most common symptoms. The pooled prevalence of abnormal liver functions (12 studies, n=1267) was 19% (9-32; range 1-53; I2=96%). Subgroup analysis showed patients with severe COVID-19 had higher rates of abdominal pain (odds ratio [OR] 7·10 [95% CI 1·93-26·07]; p=0·003; I2=0%) and abnormal liver function including increased ALT (1·89 [1·30-2·76]; p=0·0009; I2=10%) and increased AST (3·08 [2·14-4·42]; p<0·00001; I2=0%) compared with those with non-severe disease. Patients in Hubei province, where the initial COVID-19 outbreak occurred, were more likely to present with abnormal liver functions (p<0·0001) compared with those outside of Hubei. Paediatric patients with COVID-19 had a similar prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms to those of adult patients. 10% (95% CI 4-19; range 3-23; I2=97%) of patients presented with gastrointestinal symptoms alone without respiratory features. Patients who presented with gastrointestinal system involvement had delayed diagnosis (standardised mean difference 2·85 [95% CI 0·22-5·48]; p=0·030; I2=73%). Patients with gastrointestinal involvement tended to have a poorer disease course (eg, acute respiratory distress syndrome OR 2·96 [95% CI 1·17-7·48]; p=0·02; I2=0%).

INTERPRETATION

Our study showed that digestive symptoms and liver injury are not uncommon in patients with COVID-19. Increased attention should be paid to the care of this unique group of patients.

FUNDING

None.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), SARS-CoV-2 and the pathophysiology of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) has been established as the functional host receptor for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus responsible for the current devastating worldwide pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). ACE2 is abundantly expressed in a variety of cells residing in many different human organs. In human physiology, ACE2 is a pivotal counter-regulatory enzyme to ACE by the breakdown of angiotensin II, the central player in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and the main substrate of ACE2. Many factors have been associated with both altered ACE2 expression and COVID-19 severity and progression, including age, sex, ethnicity, medication, and several co-morbidities, such as cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome. Although ACE2 is widely distributed in various human tissues and many of its determinants have been well recognised, ACE2-expressing organs do not equally participate in COVID-19 pathophysiology, implying that other mechanisms are involved in orchestrating cellular infection resulting in tissue damage. Reports of pathologic findings in tissue specimens of COVID-19 patients are rapidly emerging and confirm the established role of ACE2 expression and activity in disease pathogenesis. Identifying pathologic changes caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection is crucially important as it has major implications for understanding COVID-19 pathophysiology and the development of evidence-based treatment strategies. Currently, many interventional strategies are being explored in ongoing clinical trials, encompassing many drug classes and strategies, including antiviral drugs, biological response modifiers, and RAAS inhibitors. Ultimately, prevention is key to combat COVID-19 and appropriate measures are being taken accordingly, including development of effective vaccines. In this review, we describe the role of ACE2 in COVID-19 pathophysiology, including factors influencing ACE2 expression and activity in relation to COVID-19 severity. In addition, we discuss the relevant pathological changes resulting from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Finally, we highlight a selection of potential treatment modalities for COVID-19. © 2020 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Beware: Gastrointestinal symptoms can be a manifestation of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing number of reports on the presentation of gastrointestinal symptoms in cases of COVID-19.

AIM

To review the studies reporting gastrointestinal symptoms in COVID-19.

RESULTS

Fifteen articles (2,800 patients) were identified. Gastrointestinal symptom frequency varied from 3.0% to 39.6% and included diarrhea (7.5%), náusea (4.5%), anorexia (4.4%), vomiting (1.3%), abdominal pain (0.5%), and belching/reflux (0.3%). Those symptoms can be the first manifestation of COVID-19, but whether they reflect a better or worse prognosis, is controversial. The potential relation of the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 receptor in the digestive tract as an entry route for the virus is discussed.

CONCLUSION

Gastrointestinal symptoms may be common in COVID-19, in some cases appearing as the first manifestation, even before fever and respiratory symptoms. Therefore, clinicians and gastroenterologists must be aware of those atypical cases during the current pandemic, as well as of the fecal-oral route and corresponding preventive measures.

Potential Treatment Options for COVID-19: A Comprehensive Review of Global Pharmacological Development Efforts

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), first reported in China during December of 2019, is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Infection later spread very rapidly around the globe with over 8,708,008 cases reported, including more than 461,715 deaths reported across at least 216 countries by June 20, 2020. It was declared as a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020. With the rapidly increasing number of positive cases and deaths, there is a dire need for effective treatment. An urgent unmet need led to the planning and opening of multiple drug development trials for treatment and vaccine development. In this article, we have compiled comprehensive data on many candidate drugs such as remdesivir, favipiravir, ribavirin, umifenovir, arbidol, lopinavir, ritonavir, baricitinib, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide, azithromycin, baloxavir, oseltamivir, losartan, and tocilizumab. We have tabulated available data on various clinical trials testing various aspects of COVID-19 therapeutics.

Gastrointestinal and hepatic manifestations of Corona Virus Disease-19 and their relationship to severe clinical course: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many case series on Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19) have reported gastrointestinal (GI) and hepatic manifestations in a proportion of cases; however, the data is conflicting. The relationship of GI and hepatic involvement with severe clinical course of COVID-19 has also not been explored.

OBJECTIVES

The main objectives were to determine the frequency of GI and hepatic manifestations of COVID-19 and to explore their relationship with severe clinical course.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for studies published between January 1, 2020, and March 25, 2020, with data on GI and hepatic manifestations in adult patients with COVID-19. These data were compared between patients with severe and good clinical course using the random-effects model and odds ratio (OR) as the effect size. If the heterogeneity among studies was high, sensitivity analysis was performed for each outcome.

RESULTS

We included 62 studies (8301 patients) in the systematic review and 26 studies (4676 patients) in the meta-analysis. Diarrhea was the most common GI symptom (9%), followed by nausea/vomiting (5%) and abdominal pain (4%). Transaminases were abnormal in approximately 25%, bilirubin in 9%, prothrombin time (PT) in 7%, and low albumin in 60%. Up to 20% patients developed severe clinical course, and GI and hepatic factors associated with severe clinical course were as follows: diarrhea (OR 2), high aspartate aminotransferase (OR 1.4), high alanine aminotransferase (OR 1.6), high bilirubin (OR 2.4), low albumin (OR 3.4), and high PT (OR 3).

CONCLUSIONS

GI and hepatic involvement should be sought in patients with COVID-19 since it portends severe clinical course. The pathogenesis of GI and hepatic involvement needs to be explored in future studies.

COVID-19 in Africa: care and protection for frontline healthcare workers

Medical staff caring for COVID-19 patients face mental stress, physical exhaustion, separation from families, stigma, and the pain of losing patients and colleagues. Many of them have acquired SARS-CoV-2 and some have died. In Africa, where the pandemic is escalating, there are major gaps in response capacity, especially in human resources and protective equipment. We examine these challenges and propose interventions to protect healthcare workers on the continent, drawing on articles identified on Medline (Pubmed) in a search on 24 March 2020. Global jostling means that supplies of personal protective equipment are limited in Africa. Even low-cost interventions such as facemasks for patients with a cough and water supplies for handwashing may be challenging, as is 'physical distancing' in overcrowded primary health care clinics. Without adequate protection, COVID-19 mortality may be high among healthcare workers and their family in Africa given limited critical care beds and difficulties in transporting ill healthcare workers from rural to urban care centres. Much can be done to protect healthcare workers, however. The continent has learnt invaluable lessons from Ebola and HIV control. HIV counselors and community healthcare workers are key resources, and could promote social distancing and related interventions, dispel myths, support healthcare workers, perform symptom screening and trace contacts. Staff motivation and retention may be enhanced through carefully managed risk 'allowances' or compensation. International support with personnel and protective equipment, especially from China, could turn the pandemic's trajectory in Africa around. Telemedicine holds promise as it rationalises human resources and reduces patient contact and thus infection risks. Importantly, healthcare workers, using their authoritative voice, can promote effective COVID-19 policies and prioritization of their safety. Prioritizing healthcare workers for SARS-CoV-2 testing, hospital beds and targeted research, as well as ensuring that public figures and the population acknowledge the commitment of healthcare workers may help to maintain morale. Clearly there are multiple ways that international support and national commitment could help safeguard healthcare workers in Africa, essential for limiting the pandemic's potentially devastating heath, socio-economic and security impacts on the continent.

Efficacy and safety of antibiotic agents in children with COVID-19: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antibiotic agents in children with COVID-19, as well as to introduce the present situation of antibiotics use and bacterial coinfections in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

We searched Cochrane library, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CBM, Wanfang Data and CNKI from their inception to March 31, 2020. In addition, we searched related studies on COVID-19 published before March 31, 2020 through Google Scholar. We evaluated the risk of bias of included studies, and synthesized the results using a qualitative synthesis.

RESULTS

Six studies met our inclusion criteria. Five studies on SARS showed an overall risk of death of 7.2% to 20.0%. One study of SARS patients who used macrolides, quinolones or beta lactamases showed that the mean duration of hospital stay was 14.2, 13.8 and 16.2 days, respectively, and their average duration of fever was 14.3, 14.0 and 16.2 days, respectively. One cohort study on MERS indicated that macrolide therapy was not associated with a significant reduction in 90-day mortality (adjusted OR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.47-1.51, P=0.56) and improvement in MERS-CoV RNA clearance (adjusted HR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.47-1.64, P=0.68). According to the findings of 33 studies, the proportion of antibiotics use ranged from 19.4% to 100.0% in children and 13.2% to 100.0% in adults, despite the lack of etiological evidence. The most commonly used antibiotics in adults were quinolones, cephalosporins and macrolides and in children meropenem and linezolid.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of antibiotic agents for adults with SARS or MERS were questionable in the absence of bacterial coinfections. There is no evidence to support the use of antibiotic agents for children with COVID-19 in the absence of bacterial coinfection.

Literature-based review of the drugs used for the treatment of COVID-19

COVID-19 is primarily a respiratory disease caused by a newly discovered SARS-CoV-2 virus and identified in the city of Wuhan, China in December 2019. WHO has declared this disease as a pandemic, and warned other countries. Presently this has affected 216 countries, areas or territories worldwide, spreading of this disease is very fast in USA, Brazil, and Russia than in the country of its origin, China. Like other coronaviruses, this may develop respiratory tract infections in the patients range from mild to fatal illness like pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). As of now, no effective drug, vaccine, or any procedure is available and experiments are underway. However, empirical therapy is being followed to manage and save the lives of the patients. There is a need for pharmacological alternatives to combat this deadly virus and its complications. Based on the previous experiences with similar coronavirus management and present preliminary data from uncontrolled studies, drugs like chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, and favipiravir have been recommended by the researchers to manage COVID-19. This review had assessed the potential mechanisms, safety profile, availability and cost of these drugs. This review concludes that the drugs mentioned above are having different properties and act differently in combating the COVID-19 viruses. Instead of single drug, combination of antivirals with different mechanism of action may be more effective and at the same time their adverse events should not be underestimated.

Clinical Features of COVID-19 and Factors Associated with Severe Clinical Course: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

COVID-19 is a new disease which has become a global pandemic, and is caused by a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. The disease is still not very well characterized, and factors associated with severe clinical course are not well known.

Methods

The main objectives were to determine the demographic, clinical and laboratory manifestations of COVID-19 and to identify the factors associated with severe clinical course. We searched the PubMed for studies published between Jan 1, 2020 and Mar 17, 2020, and included them if they were in English language, published in full, were retrospective or prospective observational or case control study with data on clinical, laboratory and imaging features of adult patients with COVID-19 disease from single or multiple centers. Studies that included exclusively pediatric patients were excluded. The demographic, clinical and laboratory data was displayed as n (%) or mean (SD). The meta-analysis on factors associated with severe clinical course was performed using the random effects model, and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated as the effect sizes.

Findings

We included 58 studies (6892 patients) for the systematic review on clinical manifestations and 21 studies (3496 patients) for meta-analysis on factors associated with severe clinical course. The mean age of patients with COVID-19 is 49.7±16.3 years with a male to female ratio of 1.2:1. Common symptoms and their frequency are: fever (83.4%), cough (60.5%), fatigue (33.8%), sputum (28.9%), dyspnea (22.1%), myalgia (20.6%), chest tightness / pain (16.3%), sore throat (13.5%), headache (11.2%), diarhhea (7.5%), nasal congestion / rhinorrhea (6.7%), nausea / vomiting (5.6%), pain abdomen (4.6%), and hemoptysis (1.7%). The comorbidities associated with COVID-19 are: hypertension (18.4%), diabetes mellitus (9.8%), cardiovascular diseases (8.8%), endocrine diseases (5.8%), gastrointestinal diseases (5%), CLD (3%), and COPD (2.8%). Among the laboratory parameters WBC was low in 27%, high in 9%, platelets were low in 22.9%, creatinine was high in 6.5%, AST was high in 25.3%, ALT was high in 22.7%, bilirubin was high in 8.8%, albumin was low 60.1%, CT chest was abnormal in 89%, CRP was high in 67.5%, LDH was high in 52%, D-dimer was high in 34.8%, CK was high in 14.4%, and procalcitonin was high in 15.4%. Factors significantly associated severe clinical course (with their ORs) are as follows: High CRP (5.78), high procalcitonin (5.45), age >60 (4.82), dyspnea (4.66), high LDH (4.59), COPD (4.37), low albumin (4.34), high D-dimer (4.03), cardiac disease (3.88), low lymphocyte count (3.22), any associated comorbidity (3.16), diabetes mellitus (3.11), high WBC count (2.67), high bilirubin level (2.55), high creatinine (2.34), high AST (2.31), hypertension (2.30), low platelets (1.78), High ALT (1.69), high CK (1.66), fever spikes ≥39°C (1.59), diarrhea (1.55), male gender (1.47), and sputum (1.35).

Interpretation

Identification of these factors associated with severe COVID-19 will help the physicians working at all levels of healthcare (primary, secondary, tertiary and ICU) in determining which patients need home care, hospital care, HDU care, and ICU admission; and thus, prioritize the scarce healthcare resource use more judiciously. Many of these identified factors can also help the public at large in the current COVID-19 epidemic setting, to judge when they should seek immediate medical care.

A report of clinical diagnosis and treatment of nine cases of coronavirus disease 2019

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has become an important public health issue in the world. More than 118 000 cases were confirmed around the world. The main clinical manifestations were respiratory symptoms and occasional gastrointestinal symptoms. However, there is no unified standard for the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19. In the retrospective analysis, we report nine cases of COVID-19, describe the history of contact, clinical manifestations, the course of diagnosis and clinical treatment before, during and after treatment.