ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Molecular and antigen point-of-care tests (POCTs) have augmented our ability to rapidly identify and manage SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, their clinical performance varies among individual studies. OBJECTIVES: The evaluation of the performance of molecular and antigen-based POCTs in confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19 cases compared with that of laboratory-based RT-PCR in real-life settings. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Cochrane COVID-19 study register, and COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed or preprint observational studies or randomized controlled trials that evaluated any type of commercially available antigen and/or molecular POCTs for SARS-CoV-2, including multiplex PCR panels, approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration, with Emergency Use Authorization, and/or marked with Conformitè Europëenne from European Commission/European Union. PARTICIPANTS: Close contacts and/or patients with symptomatic and/or asymptomatic confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19 infection of any age. TEST/S: Molecular and/or antigen-based SARS-CoV-2 POCTs. REFERENCE STANDARD: Laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Eligible studies were subjected to quality-control and risk-of-bias assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Summary sensitivities and specificities with their 95% CIs were estimated using a bivariate model. Subgroup analysis was performed when at least three studies informed the outcome. RESULTS: A total of 123 eligible publications (97 and 26 studies assessing antigen-based and molecular POCTs, respectively) were retrieved from 4674 initial records. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for 13 molecular-based POCTs were 92.8% (95% CI, 88.9-95.4%) and 97.6% (95% CI, 96.6-98.3%), respectively. The sensitivity of antigen-based POCTs pooled from 138 individual evaluations was considerably lower than that of molecular POCTs; the pooled sensitivity and specificity rates were 70.6% (95% CI, 67.2-73.8%) and 98.9% (95% CI, 98.5-99.2%), respectively. DISCUSSION: Further studies are needed to evaluate the performance of molecular and antigen-based POCTs in underrepresented patient subgroups and different respiratory samples.
ABSTRACT
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to critically assess the published literature related to community-acquired viral co-infections and COVID-19 and to evaluate the prevalence, most identified co-pathogens, and relevant risk factors. Furthermore, we aimed to examine the clinical features and outcomes of co-infected compared to mono-infected COVID-19 patients. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library for studies published from 1 November 2019 to 13 August 2021. We included patients of all ages and any COVID-19 severity who were screened for respiratory viral co-infection within 48 h of COVID-19 diagnosis. The main outcome was the proportion of patients with a respiratory viral co-infection. The systematic review was registered to PROSPERO (CRD42021272235). Out of 6053 initially retrieved studies, 59 studies with a total of 16,643 SARS-CoV-2 positive patients were included. The global pooled prevalence was 5.01% (95% CI 3.34%-7.27%; I2 = 95%) based on a random-effects model, with Influenza Viruses (1.54%) and Enteroviruses (1.32%) being the most prevalent pathogens. Subgroup analyses showed that co-infection was significantly higher in paediatric (9.39%) than adult (3.51%) patients (p-value = 0.02). Furthermore, co-infected patients were more likely to be dyspnoeic and the odds of fatality (OR = 1.66) were increased. Although a relatively low proportion of COVID-19 patients have a respiratory viral co-infection, our findings show that multiplex viral panel testing may be advisable in patients with compatible symptoms. Indeed, respiratory virus co-infections may be associated with adverse clinical outcomes and therefore have therapeutic and prognostic implications.
ABSTRACT
Vitamin D supplementation and its impact on immunoregulation are widely investigated. We aimed to assess the prevention and treatment efficiency of vitamin D supplementation in the context of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and any disease-related complications. For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, medRxiv, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and ClinicalTrial.gov) for studies published between 1 November 2019 and 17 September 2021. We considered randomized trials (RCTs) as potentially eligible when patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection and received vitamin D supplementation versus a placebo or standard-of-care control. A random-effects model was implemented to obtain pooled odds ratios for the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the main outcome of mortality as well as clinical outcomes. We identified a total of 5,733 articles, of which eight RCTs (657 patients) met the eligibility criteria. Although no statistically significant effects were reached, the use of vitamin D supplementation showed a trend for reduced mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-1.71, p = 0.48] compared with the control group, with even stronger effects, when vitamin D was administered repeatedly (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.1-1.14). The mean difference for the length of hospitalization was -0.28 (95% CI -0.60 to 0.04), and the ORs were 0.41 (95% CI 0.15-1.12) and 0.52 (95% CI 0.27-1.02) for ICU admission and mechanical ventilation, respectively. In conclusion, vitamin D supplementation did not improve the clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients, but trends of beneficial effects were observed. Further investigations are required, especially studies focusing on the daily administration of vitamin D.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Humans , Dietary Supplements , SARS-CoV-2 , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Vitamin D/therapeutic use , Vitamins/therapeutic useABSTRACT
In 2020, SARS-COV-2 put health systems under unprecedented resource and manpower pressure leading to significant number of deaths. Expectedly, researchers sought to shed light on the pathophysiologic background of this novel disease (COVID-19) as well as to facilitate the design of effective therapeutic modalities. Indeed, early enough the pivotal role of inflammatory and thrombotic pathways in SARS-COV-2 infection has been illustrated. The purpose of this article is to briefly present the epidemiologic and clinical features of COVID-19, analyze the pathophysiologic importance of immunologic dysregulation and hypercoagulability in developing disease complications and finally to present an up-to-date systematic review of colchicine's immunomodulating capacity in view of hindering coronavirus complications.
ABSTRACT
Colchicine's medical evolution is historically bound to the Mediterranean basin, since remarkable researchers from this region underscored its valuable properties. With the passing of years colchicine became an essential pharmaceutical substance for the treatment of rheumatologic and cardiovascular diseases. In light of recent findings, the therapeutic value of colchicine has grown. In clinical practice, colchicine remains underutilized in view of its proven efficacy and safety. Its complex pharmacokinetics and multifaceted anti-inflammatory role remain under investigation. The current review addresses the safe administration of colchicine in view of key drug to drug interactions. Finally, we are briefly presenting colchicine's future potential applications.