Systematic review with meta-analysis of active herpesvirus infections in patients with COVID-19: Old players on the new field.

OBJECTIVES: Herpesviruses are ubiquitous and after primary infection they establish lifelong latency. The impairment of maintaining latency with short-term or long-term consequences could be triggered by other infection. Therefore, reactivation of herpesviruses in COVID-19 patients represents an emerging issue. DESIGN AND METHODS: This study provided the first systematic review with meta-analysis of studies that evaluated active human herpesvirus (HHV) infection (defined as the presence of IgM antibodies or HHV-DNA) in COVID-19 patients and included 36 publications collected by searching through PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of science until November 2022. RESULTS: The prevalence of active EBV, HHV6, HSV, CMV, HSV1, and VZV infection in COVID-19 population was 41% (95% CI =27%-57%), 3% (95% CI=17%-54%), 28% (95% CI=1%-85%), 25% (95% CI=1%-63%), 22% (95% CI=10%-35%), and 18% (95% CI=4%-34%), respectively. There was a 6 times higher chance for active EBV infection in patients with severe COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 controls (OR=6.45, 95% CI=1.09-38.13, p=0.040), although there was no difference in the prevalence of all evaluated active herpesvirus infections between COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 controls. CONCLUSIONS: Future research of herpesvirus and SARS-CoV-2 coinfections must be prioritized to define: who, when and how to be tested, as well as how to effectively treat HHVs reactivations in acute and long COVID-19 patients.

Clinical efficacy of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies in preventing hospitalisation and mortality among patients infected with Omicron variants: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Until now, the treatment protocols for COVID-19 have been revised multiple times. The use and approval of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for COVID-19 treatment represent exceptional achievements in modern science, technology and medicine. SARS-CoV-2 Omicron evasion of pre-existing immunity represents a serious public health problem nowadays. This systematic review with meta-analysis provided comprehensive and up-to-date evidence of the clinical efficacy of therapeutic anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs against Omicron subvariants in COVID-19 patients and included 10 articles. The prevalence of hospitalisation among Omicron-positive patients treated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs was 2.8% (89/3169) while it controls (Omicron-positive patients treated with other therapies) 11% (154/1371). There was a statistically significantly different number of hospitalisations between the two studied groups in favour of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs treated group. (OR = 0.56, 95% CI OR = 0.41-0.77, p < 0.001, respectively). Eight deaths (0.30%) out of 2619 Omicron-positive patients occurred in the anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs treated group, while in the control group (Omicron-positive patients treated with other therapies), 27 patients died out of 1401 (1.93%). There was a significantly different number of deaths between the two studied groups in favour of Omicron-positive patients treated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs (OR = 0.38, 95% CI OR = 0.17-0.85, p = 0.020). Using sotrovimab in treating Omicron-positive patients indicated a reduction of hospitalisation and mortality for 49% and 89% in favour of sotrovimab, respectively (OR = 0.51, 95% CI OR = 0.34-0.79, p = 0.002; OR = 0.11, 95% CI OR = 0.03-0.39, p = 0.001). We could only provide evidence of the positive impact in reducing hospitalisation and mortality rates when anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs were used to treat patients infected with Omicron variants BA.1 or BA.2 and not on other Omicron variants.

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Profile of Hospital-Acquired Infections in Adult Intensive Care Units.

Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) are a global public health concern. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, its contribution to mortality and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) grows, particularly in intensive care units (ICUs). A two-year retrospective study from April 2019-April 2021 was conducted in an adult ICU at the Hospital for Infectious and Tropical Diseases, Belgrade, Serbia to assess causative agents of HAIs and AMR rates, with the COVID-19 pandemic ensuing halfway through the study. Resistance rates >80% were observed for the majority of tested antimicrobials. In COVID-19 patients, Acinetobacter spp. was the dominant cause of HAIs and more frequently isolated than in non-COVID-19 patients. (67 vs. 18, p = 0.001). Also, resistance was higher for imipenem (56.8% vs. 24.5%, p < 0.001), meropenem (61.1% vs. 24.3%, p < 0.001) and ciprofloxacin (59.5% vs. 36.9%, p = 0.04). AMR rates were aggregated with findings from our previous study to identify resistance trends and establish empiric treatment recommendations. The increased presence of Acinetobacter spp. and a positive trend in Klebsiella spp. resistance to fluoroquinolones (R2 = 0.980, p = 0.01) and carbapenems (R2 = 0.963, p = 0.02) could have contributed to alarming resistance rates across bloodstream infections (BSIs), pneumonia (PN), and urinary tract infections (UTIs). Exceptions were vancomycin (16.0%) and linezolid (2.6%) in BSIs; tigecycline (14.3%) and colistin (0%) in PNs; and colistin (12.0%) and linezolid (0%) in UTIs. COVID-19 has changed the landscape of HAIs in our ICUs. Approval of new drugs and rigorous surveillance is urgently needed.

Comparison and Sensitivity Evaluation of Three Different Commercial Real-Time Quantitative PCR Kits for SARS-CoV-2 Detection.

Real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is the most sensitive and specific assay and, therefore, is the "gold standard" diagnostic method for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The aim of this study was to compare and analyze the detection performance of three different commercially available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection kits: Sansure Biotech, GeneFinderTM, and TaqPathTM on 354 randomly selected samples from hospitalized COVID-19 patients. All PCR reactions were performed using the same RNA isolates and one real-time PCR machine. The final result of the three evaluated kits was not statistically different (p = 0.107), and also had a strong positive association and high Cohen's κ coefficient. In contrast, the average Ct values that refer to the ORF1ab and N gene amplification were significantly different (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively), with the lowest obtained by the TaqPathTM for the ORF1ab and by the Sansure Biotech for the N gene. The results show a high similarity in the analytical sensitivities for SARS-CoV-2 detection, which indicates that the diagnostic accuracy of the three assays is comparable. However, the SanSure Biotech kit showed a bit better diagnostic performance. Our findings suggest that the imperative for improvement should address the determination of cut-off Ct values and rapid modification of the primer sets along with the appearance of new variants.