Urological complications of COVID-19: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: COVID-19 continues to be an urgent World issue. Receptors of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), gateway of SARS-CoV-2, are present in the lungs, bladder, prostate, and testicles. Therefore, these organs face high risk of damage caused by the virus and this mechanism may explain non-respiratory symptoms of the disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review, guided by the PRIMSA statement, was proposed to elucidate possible urological complications of COVID-19. Searches were carried out in Medline (PubMed), Cochrane (CENTRAL), Embase, MedRxiv and LILACS. Bias analysis was made using the specific Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for each study design. RESULTS: Search was carried out until April 2022, and 8,477 articles were identified. Forty-nine of them were included in this systematic review. There is evidence that lower urinary tract symptoms and acute scrotum may be signs of COVID-19 in men, although in a small proportion. Also, the disease may have a transitory impact on male fertility, evidenced by several alterations in sperm counts. However, it must be clarified whether this impact is transitory, or may last for longer periods. Several patients showed reduction of total value of testosterone. Two authors linked low levels of testosterone with worse outcomes of COVID-19, suggesting that the hormone may be used as an early biomarker of the severity of the disease. Moreover, it is extremely unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted by semen. CONCLUSION: This systematic review identified possible repercussions of COVID-19 in the urinary as well as in the male reproductive system.

Use of anticoagulants in patients with COVID-19: a living systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To answer questions related to the use of anticoagulants in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized controlled trials comparing the use of anticoagulants in non-hospitalized and hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to January 22, 2022. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, and the quality of evidence was assessed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. RESULTS: A total of 401 studies were initially selected. Of those, 9 met the inclusion criteria and were therefore analyzed (a total of 6,004 patients being analyzed). In non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients, no significant difference was found between post-discharge prophylactic anticoagulation and no intervention regarding venous thromboembolism or bleeding at 30 days. In hospitalized COVID-19 patients, full anticoagulation resulted in a slight reduction in thrombotic events at 30 days (risk difference, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.06 to -0.00; p = 0.04; I2 = 78%), the quality of evidence being moderate. However, no significant difference was found between full anticoagulation and no intervention regarding the risk of major bleeding, the quality of evidence being very low. No significant difference was found between intermediate- and standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (risk difference, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.06; p = 0.81; I2 = 0%), the quality of evidence being very low. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic anticoagulation appears to have no effect on mortality in COVID-19 patients, resulting in a slight reduction in venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients.

Use of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Studies in the literature regarding the use of remdesivir to treat COVID-19 patients have shown conflicting results. This study sought to answer questions related to the use of remdesivir for the treatment of patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19. METHODS: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis including phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies selected from various databases, comparing patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19 receiving remdesivir and controls. RESULTS: A total of 207 studies were retrieved, 9 of which met the eligibility criteria and were included in the study. The meta-analysis using RCTs alone showed no statistically significant differences regarding mortality or use of mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation between remdesivir and control groups, and the quality of evidence was moderate and low, respectively. The use of remdesivir increased the recovery rate by 6% (95% CI, 3-9); p = 0.004) and the clinical improvement rate by 7% (95% CI, 1-14); p = 0.02). Additionally, no significant differences in mortality were found between remdesivir and control groups when the meta-analysis used observational cohort studies alone (risk difference = -0.01 (95% CI, -0.02 to 0.01; p = 0.32), the quality of evidence being moderate, and the risk of adverse events was 4% ([95% CI, -0.08 to 0.01]; p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: The use of remdesivir for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 had no significant impact on clinically important outcomes.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of colon capsule endoscopy accuracy for colorectal cancer screening. An alternative during the Covid-19 pandemic?

AIM: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of colon capsule endoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: Studies that compared the diagnostic performance of colonoscopy and second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE-2) for screening of asymptomatic patients aged 50-75 years were included. The primary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios for polyps and adenomas measuring at least 6 mm or 10 mm. RESULTS: Eight full-text studies that evaluated 1602 patients were included for systematic review. Of these, 840 (52.43%) patients participated in an opportunistic screening program. The pooled outcomes of CCE-2 for polyps at least 6 mm / 10 mm were (CI = confidence interval): sensitivity: 88% (95% CI: 0.84-0.91) / 88% (95% CI: 0.82-0.93), specificity: 94% (95% CI: 0.92-0.95) / 95.5% (95% CI: 0.94-0.97); positive likelihood ratio: 11.86 (95% CI: 5.53-25.46) / 23.07 (95% CI: 6.163-86.36); negative likelihood ratio: 0.14 (95% CI: 0.1-0.21) / 0.14 (95% CI: 0.09-0.21). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve for polyps at least 6 and 10 mm was 96.3% and 96.7%, respectively. The only cancer missed by complete CCE-2 was shown at multiple frames in the unblinded review. In total, 125 (7.8%) patients presented mild adverse events mostly related to bowel preparation. CONCLUSION: CCE-2 is demonstrated to be an effective and safe alternative method for colorectal cancer screening. Diagnostic performance of CCE-2 for polyps of at least 6 and 10 mm was similar. Completion rates still need to be improved.

Use of hydroxychloroquine to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and treat mild COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine has demonstrated no effect on the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to answer questions related to the use of hydroxychloroquine for pre-exposure or post-exposure prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and in the treatment of patients with mild COVID-19 in terms of hospitalization, adverse events, and mortality. METHODS: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized clinical trials, selected from various databases, which compared patients who received hydroxychloroquine for SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis or treatment of mild COVID-19 cases with controls. RESULTS: A total number of 1,376 studies were retrieved. Of those, 9 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the study. No statistically significant differences were found between the hydroxychloroquine and control groups in terms of pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The use of hydroxychloroquine increased the risk of adverse events by 12% (95% CI, 6-18%; p < 0.001), and the number needed to harm was 9. In addition, no significant differences were found between the hydroxychloroquine and control groups regarding hospitalization (risk difference [RD] = -0.02; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.00; p = 0.14) or mortality (RD = 0.00; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.02; p = 0.98) in the treatment of mild COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The use of hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 infection or treatment of patients with mild COVID-19 is not recommended.

Diagnostic Characteristics of Serological-Based COVID-19 Testing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Serologic testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) promises to assist in assessing exposure to and confirming the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and to provide a roadmap for reopening countries worldwide. Considering this, a proper understanding of serologic-based diagnostic testing characteristics is critical. The aim of this study was to perform a structured systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic characteristics of serological-based COVID-19 testing. Electronic searches were performed using Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Full-text observational studies that reported IgG or IgM diagnostic yield and used nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) of respiratory tract specimens, as a the reference standard in English language were included. A bivariate model was used to compute pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratio (LR), diagnostic odds ratio (OR), and summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five studies (n=1,166 individual tests) met inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for IgG was 81% [(95% CI, 61-92);I2=95.28], 97% [(95% CI, 78-100);I2=97.80], and 93% (95% CI, 91-95), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for IgM antibodies was 80% [(95% CI, 57-92);I2=94.63], 96% [(95% CI, 81-99);I2=92.96] and 95% (95% CI, 92-96). This meta-analysis demonstrates suboptimal sensitivity and specificity of serologic-based diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 and suggests that antibody testing alone, in its current form, is unlikely to be an adequate solution to the difficulties posed by COVID-19 and in guiding future policy decisions regarding social distancing and reopening of the economy worldwide.

Domestic violence and substance abuse during COVID19: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: As COVID-19 develops around the world, numerous publications have described the psychiatric consequences of this pandemic. Although clinicians and healthcare systems are mainly focused on managing critically ill patients in an attempt to limit the number of casualties, psychiatric disease burden is increasing significantly. In this scenario, increased domestic violence and substance abuse have been recently reported. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to perform a systematic review of the literature regarding the consequences of severe acute respiratory syndrome-CoV-2 infection in terms of domestic violence and substance abuse, and compare incidences found. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a literature search using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. The keywords included "domestic violence," "substance abuse" AND "COVID-19," including multiple variants from December 2019 through June 2020. An extensive bibliographic search was carried out in different medical databases: Pubmed, EMBASE, LILACS, medRxiv, and bioRxiv. Titles and abstracts were reviewed according to the eligibility criteria. The risk of bias in the retrieved articles was assessed by the Joanna Briggs Institute's critical assessment instrument. RESULTS: A total of 1505 papers were initially retrieved after consulting the selected databases. After browsing through titles and abstracts, 94 articles were initially included considering the predefined eligibility criteria. After a more detailed analysis, only six scientific articles remained in our selection. Of these, three were evaluating domestic violence against children, while the other three were about substance abuse. CONCLUSION: There is not enough evidence to support the concept that COVID-19 has led to an increase in the rates of domestic violence and substance abuse. The initial decrease in violence reports might not translate into a real reduction in incidence but in accessibility. Apparently, there has been a slight increase in alcohol and tobacco abuse, especially by regular users, which also requires confirmatory studies. The inconsistency between expert opinon articles and the actual published data could be a result of the limited time since the beginnging of the crisis, the fact that psychitaric patients have been chronically exposed to stressful situatons, and a possible stimulated increase in demand for psychatric consultations.

Diagnostic Characteristics of Serological-Based COVID-19 Testing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Serologic testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) promises to assist in assessing exposure to and confirming the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and to provide a roadmap for reopening countries worldwide. Considering this, a proper understanding of serologic-based diagnostic testing characteristics is critical. The aim of this study was to perform a structured systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic characteristics of serological-based COVID-19 testing. Electronic searches were performed using Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Full-text observational studies that reported IgG or IgM diagnostic yield and used nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) of respiratory tract specimens, as a the reference standard in English language were included. A bivariate model was used to compute pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratio (LR), diagnostic odds ratio (OR), and summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five studies (n=1,166 individual tests) met inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for IgG was 81% [(95% CI, 61-92);I2=95.28], 97% [(95% CI, 78-100);I2=97.80], and 93% (95% CI, 91-95), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for IgM antibodies was 80% [(95% CI, 57-92);I2=94.63], 96% [(95% CI, 81-99);I2=92.96] and 95% (95% CI, 92-96). This meta-analysis demonstrates suboptimal sensitivity and specificity of serologic-based diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 and suggests that antibody testing alone, in its current form, is unlikely to be an adequate solution to the difficulties posed by COVID-19 and in guiding future policy decisions regarding social distancing and reopening of the economy worldwide.