ABSTRACT
Background The impact of COVID-19 vaccination on preventing or treating long COVID is unclear. We aim to assess the impact of COVID vaccinations administered (i) before and (ii) after acute COVID-19, including vaccination after long COVID diagnosis, on the rates or symptoms of long COVID. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 trials, and Europe PMC for preprints from 1 Jan 2020 to 16 Feb 2022. We included trials, cohort, and case control studies reporting on long COVID cases and symptoms with vaccine administration both before and after COVID-19 diagnosis as well as after long COVID diagnosis. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I. Results We screened 356 articles and found no trials, but 6 observational studies from 3 countries (USA, UK, France) that reported on 442,601 patients. The most common long COVID symptoms studied include fatigue, cough, loss of smell, shortness of breath, loss of taste, headache, muscle ache, trouble sleeping, difficulty concentrating, worry or anxiety, and memory loss or confusion. Four studies reported data on vaccination before SARS-CoV-2 infection, of which three showed statistically significant reduction in long COVID: the odds ratio of developing long COVID with one dose of vaccine ranged between OR 0.22 to 1.03; with two doses OR 0.51 to 1; and with any dose OR 0.85 to 1.01. Three studies reported on post-infection vaccination with odds ratios between 0.38 to 0.91. The high heterogeneity between studies precluded any meaningful meta-analysis. Studies failed to adjust for potential confounders such as other protective behaviours, and missing data, thus increasing the risk of bias, and decreasing the certainty of evidence to low. Discussion Current studies suggest that COVID-19 vaccinations may have protective and therapeutic effects on long COVID. However, more robust comparative observational studies and trials are urgently needed to clearly determine effectiveness of vaccines in prevention and treatment of long COVID.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Anxiety Disorders , Memory DisordersABSTRACT
Background: The effect of eye protection to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in the real-world remains uncertain. We aimed to synthesize all available research on the potential impact of eye protection on transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Methods: We searched PROSPERO, PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library for clinical trials and comparative observational studies in CENTRAL, and Europe PMC for pre-prints. We included studies that reported sufficient data to estimate the effect of any form of eye protection including face shields and variants, goggles, and glasses, on subsequent confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2. Results: We screened 898 articles and included 6 reports of 5 observational studies from 4 countries (USA, India, Columbia, and United Kingdom) that tested face shields, goggles, and wraparound eyewear on 7567 healthcare workers. The three before-and-after and one retrospective cohort studies showed statistically significant and substantial reductions in SARS-CoV-2 infections favouring eye protection with odds ratios ranging from 0.04 to 0.6, corresponding to relative risk reductions of 96% to 40%. These reductions were not explained by changes in the community rates. However, the one case-control study reported odds ratio favouring no eye protection (OR 1.7, 95% CI 0.99, 3.0). The high heterogeneity between studies precluded any meaningful meta-analysis. None of the studies adjusted for potential confounders such as other protective behaviours, thus increasing the risk of bias, and decreasing the certainty of evidence to very low. Conclusions: Current studies suggest that eye protection may play a role in prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers. However, robust comparative trials are needed to clearly determine effectiveness of eye protections and wearability issues in both healthcare and general populations.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe effect of eye protection to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in the real-world remains uncertain. We aimed to synthesize all available research on the potential impact of eye protection on transmission of SARS-CoV-2. MethodsWe searched PROSPERO, PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library for clinical trials and comparative observational studies in CENTRAL, and Europe PMC for pre-prints. We included studies that reported sufficient data to estimate the effect of any form of eye protection including face shields and variants, goggles, and glasses, on subsequent confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2. FindingsWe screened 898 articles and included 6 reports of 5 observational studies from 4 countries (USA, India, Columbia, and United Kingdom) that tested face shields, googles and wraparound eyewear on 7567 healthcare workers. The three before-and-after and one retrospective cohort studies showed statistically significant and substantial reductions in SARS-CoV-2 infections favouring eye protection with odds ratios ranging from 0.04 to 0.6, corresponding to relative risk reductions of 96% to 40%. These reductions were not explained by changes in the community rates. However, the one case-control study reported odds ratio favouring no eye protection (OR 1.7, 95% CI 0.99, 3.0). The high heterogeneity between studies precluded any meaningful meta-analysis. None of the studies adjusted for potential confounders such as other protective behaviours, thus increasing the risk of bias, and decreasing the certainty of evidence to very low. InterpretationCurrent studies suggest that eye protection may play a role in prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers. However, robust comparative trials are needed to clearly determine effectiveness of eye protections and wearability issues in both healthcare and general populations. FundingThere was no funding source for this study. All authors had full access to all data and agreed to final manuscript to be submitted for publication.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Severe Acute Respiratory SyndromeABSTRACT
Abstract Background: Accurate seroprevalence estimates of SARS-CoV-2 in different populations could help gauge the true magnitude and spread of the infection seroprevalence. Reported estimates have varied greatly, but many have derived from biased samples, and inadequate testing methods. Objective: To estimate the range of valid seroprevalence rates of SARS-CoV-2 in different populations, and compare these seroprevalence estimates with the cumulative cases seen in the same population. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 trials, and Europe-PMC for published studies and pre-prints from January 2020 to 25 May 2020 that reported anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgM and/or IgA antibodies for serosurveys of either the general community or of defined sub-populations, such healthcare workers and other organizations. Results: Of the 837 studies identified, 49 were assessed and 14 were includable. Included studies represented 10 countries and 100,557 subjects: 9 from randomly selected populations, 2 from healthcare workers, 2 from industry populations, and 1of parturient women. The seroprevalence proportions in 10 studies ranged between 1%-10%, and 2 study estimates under 1%, and 2 over 10% - from the notably hard-hit regions of Gangelt in Germany and from Northwest Iran. The two studies in healthcare workers, in Italy and Spain, had seroprevalence rates at higher range of estimates, with the Barcelona hospitals having a higher rate than the Spanish national survey. For only one study was the seroprevalence estimate higher than the cumulative incidence, though these were proximate for several studies. In five studies, the seroprevalence was similar to the cumulative case numbers in the same population. For seropositive cases not previously detected as COVID-19 cases, the majority had prior COVID-like symptoms. Conclusion: The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 mostly less than 10% with the level of infection lower in the general community, suggesting levels well below herd immunity. The similarity of seroprevalence and reported cases is several studies, and high symptom rates in seropositive cases suggest that gaps between seroprevalence rates and reported cases are likely due to undertesting of symptomatic people.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe prevalence of true asymptomatic COVID-19 cases is critical to policy makers considering the effectiveness of mitigation measures against the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We aimed to synthesize all available research on the asymptomatic rates and transmission rates where possible. MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 trials, and Europe PMC (which covers pre-print platforms such as MedRxiv). We included primary studies reporting on asymptomatic prevalence where: (a) the sample frame includes at-risk population, and (b) there was sufficiently long follow up to identify pre-symptomatic cases. Meta-analysis used fixed effect and random effects models. We assessed risk of bias by combination of questions adapted from risk of bias tools for prevalence and diagnostic accuracy studies. ResultsWe screened 998 articles and included nine low risk-of-bias studies from six countries that tested 21,035 at-risk people, of which 559 were positive and 83 were asymptomatic. Diagnosis in all studies was confirmed using a RT-qPCR test. The proportion of asymptomatic cases ranged from 4% to 41%. Meta-analysis (fixed effect) found that the proportion of asymptomatic cases was 15% (95% CI: 12% - 18%) overall; higher in non-aged care 16% (13% - 19%), and lower in long-term aged care 8% (3% - 18%). Four studies provided direct evidence of forward transmission of the infection by asymptomatic cases but suggested considerably lower rates than symptomatic cases. DiscussionOur estimates of the prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases and asymptomatic transmission rates are lower than many highly publicized studies, but still sufficient to warrant policy attention. Further robust epidemiological evidence is urgently needed, including in sub-populations such as children, to better understand the importance of asymptomatic cases for driving spread of the pandemic. FundingOB is supported by NHMRC Grant APP1106452. PG is supported by NHMRC Australian Fellowship grant 1080042. KB was supported by NHMRC Fellowship grant 1174523. All authors had full access to all data and agreed to final manuscript to be submitted for publication. There was no funding source for this study.