ABSTRACT
SCOPE: Since the onset of COVID-19, several assays have been deployed for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) published the first set of guidelines on SARS-CoV-2 in vitro diagnosis in February 2022. Because the COVID-19 landscape is rapidly evolving, the relevant ESCMID guidelines panel releases an update of the previously published recommendations on diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. This update aims to delineate the best diagnostic approach for SARS-CoV-2 in different populations based on current evidence. METHODS: An ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMID Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair, and the remaining selected with an open call. The panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A list of clinical questions using the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each PICO, 2 panel members performed a literature search focusing on systematic reviews with a third panellist involved in case of inconsistent results. The panel reassessed the PICOs previously defined as priority in the first set of guidelines and decided to address 49 PICO questions, because 6 of them were discarded as outdated/non-clinically relevant. The 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)-adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of recommendations (ADOLOPMENT)' evidence-to-decision framework was used to produce the guidelines. QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS: After literature search, we updated 16 PICO questions; these PICOs address the use of antigen-based assays among symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with different ages, COVID-19 severity status or risk for severe COVID-19, time since the onset of symptoms/contact with an infectious case, and finally, types of biomaterials used.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communicable Diseases , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2 , Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures , COVID-19 TestingABSTRACT
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
Emerging numbers of SARS-CoV-2 infections are currently combated with a third vaccination. Considering the different vaccination regimens used for the first two vaccine doses, we addressed whether the previous vaccination influences the immune response to the booster. Participants for this prospective study were recruited from among healthcare workers. N = 20 participants were previously vaccinated with two doses of BNT162b2, and n = 53 received a priming dose of ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 followed by a BNT162b2 dose. Participants were vaccinated with a third dose of BNT162b2 in December 2021. Antibody concentrations were determined after vaccination, and in a subset of n = 19 participants, T cell responses were evaluated. Anti-S concentrations and IFNγ production increased during the first 21 days. The choice of the first and second vaccineshad no influence on the final outcome of the booster vaccination. Before booster vaccination, antibody concentrations were lower for older participants but increased more strongly over time.