Global influenza vaccination rates and factors associated with influenza vaccination.

OBJECTIVES: Influenza vaccination is an effective method for preventing influenza virus infection. Herein, we performed a meta-analysis to quantify global influenza vaccination rates (IVRs) and the factors influencing its uptake in the general population, individuals with chronic diseases, pregnant women, and healthcare workers. METHODS: Related articles were obtained from online databases and screened according to the inclusion criteria. The pooled IVRs were calculated using the random effects model. Subgroup analyses and multivariate meta-regression were performed to determine the factors associated with influenza vaccine uptake. RESULTS: e included 522 studies from 68 countries/regions. Most studies were conducted in the European region (247 studies), followed by the Western Pacific (135 studies) and American regions (100 studies). The IVRs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in the general population were lower (24.96%, 23.45%-26.50%) than in individuals with chronic diseases (41.65%, 40.08%-43.23%), healthcare workers (36.57%, 33.74%-39.44%), and pregnant women (25.92%, 23.18%-28.75%). The IVRs in high-income countries/regions were significantly higher than that in middle-income countries/regions. A free national or regional vaccination policy, perception of influenza vaccine efficacy and disease severity, a recommendation from healthcare workers, and having a history of influenza vaccination were positive factors for vaccine uptake (P <0.01). CONCLUSION: Overall, global IVRs were low, especially in the general population. The studies on the IVRs, especially for priority populations, should be strengthened in Eastern Mediterranean, South-East Asian, and African regions. Free vaccination policies and the dissemination of continuous awareness campaigns are effective measures to enhance vaccination uptake.

Impact of Coinfection With SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza on Disease Severity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Although coinfection with influenza in COVID-19 patients has drawn considerable attention, it is still not completely understood whether simultaneously infected with these two viruses influences disease severity. We therefore aimed to estimate the impact of coinfected with SARS-CoV-2 and influenza on the disease outcomes compared with the single infection of SARS-CoV-2. Materials and Methods: We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI) to identify relevant articles up to July 9, 2021. Studies that assessed the effect of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza coinfection on disease outcomes or those with sufficient data to calculate risk factors were included. Risk effects were pooled using fixed or random effects model. Results: We ultimately identified 12 studies with 9,498 patients to evaluate the risk effects of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza coinfection on disease severity. Results indicated that coinfection was not significantly associated with mortality (OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.51, 1.43; p = 0.55, I2 = 76.00%). However, mortality was found significantly decreased in the studies from China (OR = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.39, 0.68; I2 = 26.50%), while significantly increased outside China (OR = 1.56, 95%CI: 1.12, 2.19; I2 = 1.00%). Moreover, a lower risk for critical outcomes was detected among coinfection patients (OR = 0.64, 95%CI: 0.43, 0.97; p = 0.04, I2 = 0.00%). Additionally, coinfection patients presented different laboratory indexes compared with the single SARS-CoV-2 infection, including lymphocyte counts and APTT. Conclusion: Our study revealed that coinfection with SARS-CoV-2 and influenza had no effect on overall mortality. However, risk for critical outcomes was lower in coinfection patients and different associations were detected in the studies from different regions and specific laboratory indexes. Further studies on influenza strains and the order of infection were warranted. Systematic testing for influenza coinfection in COVID-19 patients and influenza vaccination should be recommended.

Epidemiological features and spatial-temporal distribution of visceral leishmaniasis in mainland China: a population-based surveillance study from 2004 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Although visceral leishmaniasis (VL) was largely brought under control in most regions of China during the previous century, VL cases have rebounded in western and central China in recent decades. The aim of this study was to investigate the epidemiological features and spatial-temporal distribution of VL in mainland China from 2004 to 2019. METHODS: Incidence and mortality data for VL during the period 2004-2019 were collected from the Public Health Sciences Data Center of China and annual national epidemic reports of VL, whose data source was the National Diseases Reporting Information System. Joinpoint regression analysis was performed to explore the trends of VL. Spatial autocorrelation and spatial-temporal clustering analysis were conducted to identify the distribution and risk areas of VL transmission. RESULTS: A total of 4877 VL cases were reported in mainland China during 2004-2019, with mean annual incidence of 0.0228/100,000. VL incidence showed a decreasing trend in general during our study period (annual percentage change [APC] = -4.2564, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.0856 to -0.2677). Among mainly endemic provinces, VL was initially heavily epidemic in Gansu, Sichuan, and especially Xinjiang, but subsequently decreased considerably. In contrast, Shaanxi and Shanxi witnessed significantly increasing trends, especially in 2017-2019. The first-level spatial-temporal aggregation area covered two endemic provinces in northwestern China, including Gansu and Xinjiang, with the gathering time from 2004 to 2011 (relative risk [RR] = 13.91, log-likelihood ratio [LLR] = 3308.87, P < 0.001). The secondary aggregation area was detected in Shanxi province of central China, with the gathering time of 2019 (RR = 1.61, LLR = 4.88, P = 0.041). The epidemic peak of October to November disappeared in 2018-2019, leaving only one peak in March to May. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that VL is still an important endemic infectious disease in China. Epidemic trends in different provinces changed significantly and spatial-temporal aggregation areas shifted from northwestern to central China during our study period. Mitigation strategies, including large-scale screening, insecticide spraying, and health education encouraging behavioral change, in combination with other integrated approaches, are needed to decrease transmission risk in areas at risk, especially in Shanxi, Shaanxi, and Gansu provinces.

Early Spatiotemporal Patterns and Population Characteristics of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Southeast Asia.

This observational study aims to investigate the early disease patterns of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Southeast Asia, consequently providing historical experience for further interventions. Data were extracted from official websites of the WHO and health authorities of relevant countries. A total of 1346 confirmed cases of COVID-19, with 217 recoveries and 18 deaths, were reported in Southeast Asia as of 16 March 2020. The basic reproductive number (R0) of COVID-19 in the region was estimated as 2.51 (95% CI:2.31 to 2.73), and there were significant geographical variations at the subregional level. Early transmission dynamics were examined with an exponential regression model: y = 0.30e0.13x (p < 0.01, R2 = 0.96), which could help predict short-term incidence. Country-level disease burden was positively correlated with Human Development Index (r = 0.86, p < 0.01). A potential early shift in spatial diffusion patterns and a spatiotemporal cluster occurring in Malaysia and Singapore were detected. Demographic analyses of 925 confirmed cases indicated a median age of 44 years and a sex ratio (male/female) of 1.25. Age may play a significant role in both susceptibilities and outcomes. The COVID-19 situation in Southeast Asia is challenging and unevenly geographically distributed. Hence, enhanced real-time surveillance and more efficient resource allocation are urgently needed.

Characteristics of Viral Shedding Time in SARS-CoV-2 Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: The viral shedding time (VST) of SARS-CoV-2 mainly determines its transmission and duration of infectiousness. However, it was heterogeneous in the existing studies. Here, we performed a meta-analysis to comprehensively summarize the VST of SARS-CoV-2. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, MedRxiv, BioRxiv, CNKI, CSTJ, and Wanfang up to October 25, 2020, for studies that reported VSTs of SARS-CoV-2. Pooled estimates and 95% CIs for the VSTs were calculated using log-transformed data. The VSTs in SARS-CoV-2 infections based on different demographic and clinical characteristics, treatments and specimens were stratified by subgroup analysis. Results: A total of 35 studies involving 3,385 participants met the inclusion criteria. The pooled mean VST was 16.8 days (95% CI: 14.8-19.4, I2 = 99.56%) in SARS-CoV-2 infections. The VST was significantly longer in symptomatic infections (19.7 days, 95% CI: 17.2-22.7, I2 = 99.34%) than in asymptomatic infections (10.9 days, 95% CI: 8.3-14.3, I2 = 98.89%) (P < 0.05). The VST was 23.2 days (95% CI: 19.0-28.4, I2 = 99.24%) in adults, which was significantly longer than that in children (9.9 days, 95% CI: 8.1-12.2, I2 = 85.74%) (P < 0.05). The VST was significantly longer in persons with chronic diseases (24.2 days, 95% CI: 19.2-30.2, I2 = 84.07%) than in those without chronic diseases (11.5 days, 95% CI: 5.3-25.0, I2 = 82.11%) (P < 0.05). Persons receiving corticosteroid treatment (28.3 days, 95% CI: 25.6-31.2, I2 = 0.00%) had a longer VST than those without corticosteroid treatment (16.2 days, 95% CI: 11.5-22.5, I2 = 92.27%) (P = 0.06). The VST was significantly longer in stool specimens (30.3 days, 95% CI: 23.1-39.2, I2 = 92.09%) than in respiratory tract specimens (17.5 days, 95% CI: 14.9-20.6, I2 = 99.67%) (P < 0.05). Conclusions: A longer VST was found in symptomatic infections, infected adults, persons with chronic diseases, and stool specimens.

Coronaviruses and gastrointestinal diseases.

The effects of coronaviruses on the respiratory system are of great concern, but their effects on the digestive system receive much less attention. Coronaviruses that infect mammals have shown gastrointestinal pathogenicity and caused symptoms such as diarrhea and vomiting. Available data have shown that human coronaviruses, including the newly emerged SARS-CoV-2, mainly infect the respiratory system and cause symptoms such as cough and fever, while they may generate gastrointestinal symptoms. However, there is little about the relation between coronavirus and digestive system. This review specifically addresses the effects of mammalian and human coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2, on the digestive tract, helping to cope with the new virus infection-induced disease, COVID-19.