Reinfection in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: With the continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic, some COVID-19 patients have become reinfected with the virus. Viral gene sequencing has found that some of these patients were reinfected by the different and others by same strains. This has raised concerns about the effectiveness of immunity after infection and the reliability of vaccines. To this end, we conducted a systematic review to assess the characteristics of patients with reinfection and possible causes. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across eight databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang, VIP and SinoMed from December 1, 2019 to September 1, 2021. The quality of included studies were assessed using JBI critical appraisal tools and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: This study included 50 studies from 20 countries. There were 118 cases of reinfection. Twenty-five patients were reported to have at least one complication. The shortest duration between the first infection and reinfection was 19 days and the longest was 293 days. During the first infection and reinfection, cough (51.6% and 43.9%) and fever (50% and 30.3%) were the most common symptoms respectively. Nine patients recovered, seven patients died, and five patients were hospitalized, but 97 patients' prognosis were unknown. B.1 is the most common variant strain at the first infection. B.1.1.7, B.1.128 and B.1.351 were the most common variant strains at reinfection. Thirty-three patients were infected by different strains and 9 patients were reported as being infected with the same strain. CONCLUSIONS: Our research shows that it is possible for rehabilitated patients to be reinfected by SARS-COV-2. To date, the causes and risk factors of COVID-19 reinfection are not fully understood. For patients with reinfection, the diagnosis and management should be consistent with the treatment of the first infection. The public, including rehabilitated patients, should be fully vaccinated, wear masks in public places, and pay attention to maintaining social distance to avoid reinfection with the virus.

COVID-19: Presumed Infection Routes and Psychological Impact on Staff in Administrative and Logistics Departments in a Designated Hospital in Wuhan, China.

Objective: Our aim was to explore the presumed infection routes and psychological impact of COVID-19 on staff in administrative and logistics departments (ALDs). Methods: We gathered data from all 18 staff members with COVID-19 in ALDs in Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, China. The baseline, job before diagnosis, presumed infection environment, use of protective equipment, and psychological status before and after diagnosis were collected and analyzed. A total of 18 uninfected staff members working alongside them in the same environment and 18 random matched infected doctors and nurses formed two control groups; the psychological impact of these three groups was then compared. Results: Of the 18 members of staff, 88.89% were infected due to the working environment (hospital), and nine had face-to-face conversations with doctors and nurses in their daily work. Many staff members did not take any protective measures in their routine work. Before they were diagnosed, 12 staff members were aware of the seriousness of the epidemic, and most of the staff maintained a neutral attitude to the COVID-19 outbreak. A total of 77.78% of the staff experienced psychological stress or emotional changes after diagnosis, which were mainly caused by family health and disease related issues. Most of them managed their emotions by self-control and video calls with their families. There was no significant difference in psychological impact among the three groups, but uninfected staff members were fully aware of the seriousness of the epidemic. Conclusions: Effective protective measures should be taken for staff members in ALDs. Psychological interventions are very important to help infected staff members in ALDs cope with psychological distress.

Safety and efficiency of stem cell therapy for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: With the COVID-19 pandemic continuing, various treatments have become widely practiced. Stem cells have a wide range of applications in the treatment of lung diseases and have therefore been experimentally used to treat patients with COVID-19, but whether the expanded use of stem cells is safe and reliable still lacks enough evidence. To address this issue, we systematically reviewed the safety and efficiency of stem cell therapy in COVID-19 cases. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang, VIP and SinoMed up to January 18, 2022. The included studies were assessed using the Risk-of-bias tool 1.0 and MINORS instrument. The adverse events, mortality, length of hospital day and laboratory parameters were analyzed by meta-analysis. We adhered to PRISMA reporting guideline. RESULTS: We have included 17 studies meeting the inclusion data. There were no significant differences in AEs (OR = 0·39, 95% CI = 0·12 to 1·33, P = 0·13, I2 = 58%) and SAEs (OR = 0·21, 95% CI = 0·04 to 1·03, P = 0·05, I2 = 0%) between stem cell therapy group and control group. The analysis showed that stem cell treatment could significantly reduce the mortality rate(OR = 0·24, 95% CI = 0·13 to 0·45, P < 0·01, I2 = 0%), but was not able to cause changes in length of hospital stay or most laboratory parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that stem cell therapy for COVID-19 has a remarkable effect on efficiency without increasing risks of adverse events and length of hospital stay. It is potentially necessary to establish the criteria for COVID-19 for stem cell therapy.

Quality of and Recommendations for Relevant Clinical Practice Guidelines for COVID-19 Management: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.

Background: The morbidity and mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are still increasing. This study aimed to assess the quality of relevant COVID-19 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and to compare the similarities and differences between recommendations. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted using electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) and representative guidelines repositories from December 1, 2019, to August 11, 2020 (updated to April 5, 2021), to obtain eligible CPGs. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to evaluate the quality of CPGs. Four authors extracted relevant information and completed data extraction forms. All data were analyzed using R version 3.6.0 software. Results: In total, 39 CPGs were identified and the quality was not encouragingly high. The median score (interquartile range, IQR) of every domain from AGREE II for evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs) versus (vs.) consensus-based CPG (CB-CPGs) was 81.94% (75.00-84.72) vs. 58.33% (52.78-68.06) in scope and purpose, 59.72% (38.89-75.00) vs. 36.11% (33.33-36.11) in stakeholder involvement, 64.58% (32.29-71.88) vs. 22.92% (16.67-26.56) in rigor of development, 75.00% (52.78-86.81) vs. 52.78% (50.00-63.89) in clarity of presentation, 40.63% (22.40-62.50) vs. 20.83% (13.54-25.00) in applicability, and 58.33% (50.00-100.00) vs. 50.00% (50.00-77.08) in editorial independence, respectively. The methodological quality of EB-CPGs were significantly superior to the CB-CPGs in the majority of domains (P < 0.05). There was no agreement on diagnosis criteria of COVID-19. But a few guidelines show Remdesivir may be beneficial for the patients, hydroxychloroquine +/- azithromycin may not, and there were more consistent suggestions regarding discharge management. For instance, after discharge, isolation management and health status monitoring may be continued. Conclusions: In general, the methodological quality of EB-CPGs is greater than CB-CPGs. However, it is still required to be further improved. Besides, the consistency of COVID-19 recommendations on topics such as diagnosis criteria is different. Of them, hydroxychloroquine +/- azithromycin may be not beneficial to treat patients with COVID-19, but remdesivir may be a favorable risk-benefit in severe COVID-19 infection; isolation management and health status monitoring after discharge may be still necessary. Chemoprophylaxis, including SARS-CoV 2 vaccines and antiviral drugs of COVID-19, still require more trials to confirm this.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of discharged COVID-19 patients retesting positive for RT-PCR.

BACKGROUND: With the increased number of patients discharged after having COVID-19, more and more studies have reported cases whose retesting was positive (RP) during the convalescent period, which brings a new public health challenge to the world. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang and VIP from December 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020. The included studies were assessed using JBI critical appraisal tools and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The RP rate of discharge patients was analyzed by a meta-analysis. We adhered to PRISMA reporting guideline. FINDINGS: We have included 117 studies with 2669 RP participants after discharge. The methodological quality of 66 case reports were low to high, 42 case series and 3 cohort study were moderate to high, 3 case-control studies were moderate and 3 cross-sectional studies were low to moderate. The clinical manifestations of most RP patients were mild or asymptomatic, and CT imaging and laboratory examinations were usually normal. The existing risk factors suggest that more attention should be paid to sever patients, elderly patients, and patients with co-morbidities. The summary RP rate was 12·2% (95% CI 10·6-13·7) with high heterogeneity (I2  = 85%). INTERPRETATION: To date, the causes and risk factors of RP result in discharged patients are not fully understood. High-quality etiological and clinical studies are needed to investigate these issues to further help us to make strategies to control and prevent its occurrence.

Gender Differences in Psychological and Behavioral Responses of Infected and Uninfected Health-Care Workers During the Early COVID-19 Outbreak.

Objective: Understanding gender differences in responses of health-care workers (HCWs) to COVID-19 outbreak is an effective way to promote customized supports. Methods: During February 2020, 103 HCWs infected with COVID-19 (64 females and 39 males) and 535 uninfected HCWs (383 females and 152 males) were recruited in a cross-sectional study. Level of attention, six emotional status, and self-evaluation of eight protective measures were recorded. Multivariable Firth's logistic regressions were applied to explored independent effect of gender. Results: During early outbreak, female HCWs were more likely to give greater attention, adjusted OR:1.92 (95%CI 1.14-3.23) in total HCWs. Higher proportion of anxiety was observed in female HCWs, adjusted OR:3.14 (95%CI 1.98-4.99) for total HCWs, 4.32(95%CI 1.32-14.15) for infected HCWs and 2.97 (1.78, 4.95) for uninfected HCWs. Proportion of pessimism, fear, full of fighting spirit, and optimism were low, and no gender differences were observed. During a later outbreak, a majority of HCWs reported being very familiar with eight protective measures. After training, a proportion of high self-evaluation in hand hygiene, wearing gloves, and surgical masks increased independently in female HCWs, and adjusted ORs were 3.07 (95% CI 1.57-5.99), 2.37 (95% CI 1.26-4.49), and 1.92 (95% CI 1.02-3.62), respectively. Infection status amplified gender difference in anxiety, hand hygiene, and glove wearing. Conclusion: Female HCWs perceived the outbreak seriously, effective emotional and psychological well-ness should be targeted at female HCWs preferentially, and male HCWs should be encouraged to express their feelings and be further trained.

Development of rapid advice guideline and standard and continuous updating guideline: experiences and practice.

We published rapid advice guidelines and updated guidelines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) management on February 6, 2020, and September 4, 2020, respectively. These two guidelines vary widely in their developmental background, type of evidence, grade of recommendation and so on. We shared our experience for the development of these two guidelines to help clinical practitioners better understand and implement guidelines and to help guideline developers facilitate communication and discussion for guideline development during the pandemic.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Related Clinical Studies: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The quality and rationality of many recently registered clinical studies related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) needs to be assessed. Hence, this study aims to evaluate the current status of COVID-19 related registered clinical trial. METHODS: We did an electronic search of COVID-19 related clinical studies registered between December 1, 2019 and February 21, 2020 (updated to May 28, 2020) from the ClinicalTrials.gov, and collected registration information, study details, recruitment status, characteristics of the subjects, and relevant information about the trial implementation process. RESULTS: A total of 1,706 studies were included 10.0% of which (n=171) were from France, 943 (55.3%) used an interventional design, and 600 (35.2%) used an observational design. Most of studies (73.6%) aimed to recruit fewer than 500 people. Interferon was the main prevention program, and antiviral drugs were the main treatment program. Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine (230/943, 24.4%) were widely studied. Some registered clinical trials are incomplete in content, and 37.4% of the 1,706 studies may have had insufficient sample size. CONCLUSION: The quality of COVID-19 related studies needs to be improved by strengthening the registration process and improving the quality of clinical study protocols so that these clinical studies can provide high-quality clinical evidence related to COVID-19.

Chemoprophylaxis, diagnosis, treatments, and discharge management of COVID-19: An evidence-based clinical practice guideline (updated version).

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting more than seventeen million people around the world. Diagnosis and treatment guidelines for clinicians caring for patients are needed. In the early stage, we have issued "A rapid advice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infected pneumonia (standard version)"; now there are many direct evidences emerged and may change some of previous recommendations and it is ripe for develop an evidence-based guideline. We formed a working group of clinical experts and methodologists. The steering group members proposed 29 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 covering the following areas: chemoprophylaxis, diagnosis, treatments, and discharge management. We searched the literature for direct evidence on the management of COVID-19, and assessed its certainty generated recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of ungraded consensus-based statement. Finally, we issued 34 statements. Among them, 6 were strong recommendations for, 14 were weak recommendations for, 3 were weak recommendations against and 11 were ungraded consensus-based statement. They covered topics of chemoprophylaxis (including agents and Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) agents), diagnosis (including clinical manifestations, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), respiratory tract specimens, IgM and IgG antibody tests, chest computed tomography, chest x-ray, and CT features of asymptomatic infections), treatments (including lopinavir-ritonavir, umifenovir, favipiravir, interferon, remdesivir, combination of antiviral drugs, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interleukin-6 inhibitors, interleukin-1 inhibitors, glucocorticoid, qingfei paidu decoction, lianhua qingwen granules/capsules, convalescent plasma, lung transplantation, invasive or noninvasive ventilation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)), and discharge management (including discharge criteria and management plan in patients whose RT-PCR retesting shows SARS-CoV-2 positive after discharge). We also created two figures of these recommendations for the implementation purpose. We hope these recommendations can help support healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients.

Development and preliminary validation of questionnaire for infection process and prevention of 2019 novel coronavirus infection in medical staffs

Objective To develop the questionnaire and test its reliability for investigating route, prevention, and control of SARS-CoV-2 infection in medical staffs. Methods This questionnaire was development based on the COVID-19 relevant guidelines, official documents issued by the National Health Committee of the People's Republic of China, and published studies. The development group performed repeated discussions and drafted the first questionnaire, then performed expert consultation and revised the draft according to their suggestions. Eventually, some frontline medical staffs were invited to carry out pre-test investigation of the questionnaire and test its reliability. Results The first draft included 48 items;18 experts were invited in the first round questionnaire and 10 experts in the second round questionnaire. The positive coefficient of experts in these two rounds was both greater than 75%, and the authority coefficient of experts' opinions was greater than 0.70. The variation coefficient of these items was between 0.00 and 0.35, the coordination coefficient of experts was 0.193 (P<0.05). The experts of above two rounds put forward 14 suggestions for text modification or adjustment options of some items;after the development group held repeatedly discussions, a total of 8 items were performed secondary consultation and finally reached consensus. The final questionnaire included two domains of questionnaire before and after confirmed diagnosis. The domain "before confirmed diagnosis" covered 4 sections and 29 items involving infectious cause, plan and knowledge of prevention and control, and psychological symptoms. The domain "after confirmed diagnosis" covered 5 sections and 21 items, included symptoms, treatment, and psychological status after diagnosis;impact on the surrounding environment and people, and awareness of protection after infection. The pre-test results showed that the total items were considerably numerous, some items were difficult to understand, some laboratory results and treatment conditions were ambiguous, etc. After modification and re-testing, the test-re-test reliability of each domain was between 0.74 and 0.93, and the overall re-test reliability of the questionnaire content was 0.82. Conclusions This research has developed a questionnaire for investigating infection process, prevention and control of SARS-CoV-2 infection in medical staff, and the items considered two domains prior to and after confirmed diagnosis. The reliability and practicability of the questionnaire are acceptable.

Developments, Evolution, and Implications of National Diagnostic Criteria for COVID-19 in China.

Recently WHO has characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic. Diagnosing the disease accurately and decreasing misdiagnoses and missed diagnoses is very important for management. Therefore, we have analyzed the seven versions of China's national guidelines to examine how the diagnostic criteria roadmap has developed and evolved, in order to share our experience worldwide. In this article, we present the developments from the first to seventh versions, involving changes of case classification, changes to "suspected case," changes in "confirmed case," changes in clinical classifications, changes in "severe case," and unchanged criteria. We have also discussed the reasons and implications for these changes and are looking forward to providing suggestions for worldwide understanding and management of this pandemic. A nucleic acid test is currently accepted as the gold standard method to confirm diagnosis. In addition, imaging examination and epidemiological history should also be considered as auxiliary diagnosis methods.

Perceived infection transmission routes, infection control practices, psychosocial changes, and management of COVID-19 infected healthcare workers in a tertiary acute care hospital in Wuhan: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Many healthcare workers were infected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) early in the epidemic posing a big challenge for epidemic control. Hence, this study aims to explore perceived infection routes, influencing factors, psychosocial changes, and management procedures for COVID-19 infected healthcare workers. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, single hospital-based study. We recruited all 105 confirmed COVID-19 healthcare workers in the Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University from February 15 to 29, 2020. All participants completed a validated questionnaire. Electronic consent was obtained from all participants. Perceived causes of infection, infection prevention, control knowledge and behaviour, psychological changes, symptoms and treatment were measured. RESULTS: Finally, 103 professional staff with COVID-19 finished the questionnaire and was included (response rate: 98.1%). Of them, 87 cases (84.5%) thought they were infected in working environment in hospital, one (1.0%) thought their infection was due to the laboratory environment, and 5 (4.9%) thought they were infected in daily life or community environment. Swab of throat collection and physical examination were the procedures perceived as most likely causing their infection by nurses and doctors respectively. Forty-three (41.8%) thought their infection was related to protective equipment, utilization of common equipment (masks and gloves). The top three first symptoms displayed before diagnosis were fever (41.8%), lethargy (33.0%) and muscle aches (30.1%). After diagnosis, 88.3% staff experienced psychological stress or emotional changes during their isolation period, only 11.7% had almost no emotional changes. Arbidol (Umifenovir; an anti-influza drug; 69.2%) was the drug most commonly used to target infection in mild and moderate symptoms. CONCLUSION: The main perceived mode of transmission was not maintaining protection when working at a close distance and having intimate contact with infected cases. Positive psychological intervention is necessary.

Updating the diagnostic criteria of COVID-19 "suspected case" and "confirmed case" is necessary.

On 6 February 2020, our team had published a rapid advice guideline for diagnosis and treatment of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infection, and this guideline provided our experience and make well reference for fighting against this pandemic worldwide. However, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a new disease, our awareness and knowledge are gradually increasing based on the ongoing research findings and clinical practice experience; hence, the strategies of diagnosis and treatment are also continually updated. In this letter, we answered one comment on our guideline and provided the newest diagnostic criteria of "suspected case" and "confirmed case" according to the latest Diagnosis and Treatment Guidelines for COVID-19 (seventh version) that issued by the National Health Committee of the People's Republic of China.

A rapid advice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infected pneumonia (standard version).

In December 2019, a new type viral pneumonia cases occurred in Wuhan, Hubei Province; and then named "2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)" by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 12 January 2020. For it is a never been experienced respiratory disease before and with infection ability widely and quickly, it attracted the world's attention but without treatment and control manual. For the request from frontline clinicians and public health professionals of 2019-nCoV infected pneumonia management, an evidence-based guideline urgently needs to be developed. Therefore, we drafted this guideline according to the rapid advice guidelines methodology and general rules of WHO guideline development; we also added the first-hand management data of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University. This guideline includes the guideline methodology, epidemiological characteristics, disease screening and population prevention, diagnosis, treatment and control (including traditional Chinese Medicine), nosocomial infection prevention and control, and disease nursing of the 2019-nCoV. Moreover, we also provide a whole process of a successful treatment case of the severe 2019-nCoV infected pneumonia and experience and lessons of hospital rescue for 2019-nCoV infections. This rapid advice guideline is suitable for the first frontline doctors and nurses, managers of hospitals and healthcare sections, community residents, public health persons, relevant researchers, and all person who are interested in the 2019-nCoV.