SARS-CoV-2 effects on sperm parameters: a meta-analysis study.

AIM: The rapid outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic posed challenges across different medical fields, especially reproductive health, and gave rise to concerns regarding the effects of SARS-CoV-2 on male infertility, owing to the fact that the male reproductive system indicated to be extremely vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Only a small number of studies have investigated the effects of SARS-CoV-2 on male reproduction, but the results are not consistent. So, we performed this meta-analysis to draw a clearer picture and evaluate the impacts of COVID-19 on male reproductive system. METHOD: We searched Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases to identify the potentially relevant studies. Standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was applied to assess the relationship. Heterogeneity testing, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias testing were also performed. RESULTS: A total of twelve studies including 7 case control investigations and 5 retrospective cohort studies were found relevant and chosen for our research. Our result showed that different sperm parameters including semen volume [SMD = - 0.27 (- 0.46, - 1.48) (p = 0.00)], sperm concentration [SMD = - 0.41 (- 0.67, - 0.15) (p = 0.002)], sperm count [SMD = - 0.30 (- 0.44, - 0.17) (p = 0.00)], sperm motility [SMD = - 0.66 (- 0.98, - 0.33) (p = 0.00)], and progressive motility [SMD = - 0.35 (- 0.61, - 0.08) (p = 0.01)] were negatively influenced by SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, sperm concentration (p = 0.07) and progressive motility (p = 0.61) were not found to be significantly associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in case control studies. No publication bias was detected. CONCLUSION: The present study revealed the vulnerability of semen quality to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our data showed a strong association of different sperm parameters with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The results suggested that SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients may negatively influence their fertility potential in a short-term period, but more studies are needed to decide about the long-term effects.

The Impact of Routine Molecular Screening for SARS-CoV-2 in Patients Receiving Anticancer Therapy: An Interim Analysis of the Observational COICA Study.

Introduction: Cancer aggravates COVID-19 prognosis. Nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is particularly frequent in cancer patients, who need to attend hospitals regularly. Since March 2020, all cancer patients having access to the Oncology Unit at the "Andrea Tortora" Hospital (Pagani, Salerno - referred to as "the Hospital") as inpatients or outpatients receiving intravenous therapy have been screened for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR nasal swab. The ongoing COICA (COVID-19 infection in cancer patients) study is an ambispective, multicenter, observational study designed to assess the prognosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients. The aim of the study presented here was to explore potential differences in COVID-19-related outcomes among screening-detected versus nonscreening-detected SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. Methods: The COICA study enrolled cancer patients who had received any anticancer systemic therapy within 3 months since the day they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR. The target accrual is 128 patients, and the study was approved by the competent Ethics Committee. Only the subgroup of patients enrolled at the Hospital was considered in this unplanned interim analysis. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association of screening-based versus nonscreening-based diagnosis. Results: Since March 15, 2020, until August 15, 2021, a total of 931 outpatients and 230 inpatients were repeatedly screened for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR nasal swab at the Hospital. Among these, 71 asymptomatic patients were positive on routine screening and 5 patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2 outside the institutional screening. Seven patients died because of COVID-19. At univariate analysis, nonscreening- versus screening-detected SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with significantly higher odds of O2 therapy (OR = 16.2; 95% CI = 2.2-117.1; p = 0.006), hospital admission (OR = 31.5; 95% CI = 3.1-317.8; p = 0.003), admission to ICU (OR = 23.0; 95% CI = 2.4-223.8; p = 0.007), and death (OR = 8.8; 95% CI = 1.2-65.5; p = 0.034). Conclusion: Routine screening with RT-PCR may represent a feasible and effective strategy in reducing viral circulation and possibly COVID-19 mortality in patients with active cancer having repeated access to hospital facilities.

The Effect of Vaccination against COVID-19 in Cancer Patients: Final Results of the COICA Trial.

Background: The COICA study is an ambispective, observational trial that was conceived to assess the clinical course of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in cancer patients. A recently published, population-based, case-control study reported a reduced vaccine efficacy at 3-6 months in cancer patients compared to individuals without cancer. Objectives: The aim of the study was to describe coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) outcomes in cancer patients and analyze differences in SARS-CoV-2 outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Methods: Descriptive statistics and frequency counts were used to summarize characteristics of the study population. χ2 test and the log-rank test were used to compare outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Results: A total of 141 cancer patients (80 males, 61 females) were recruited at two participating Institutions from March 2020 until April 2022 and observed from the time of positive SARS-CoV-2 test to the time of negativization or death. Approximately 35% of patients had been vaccinated at the time of infection with 2 (16 patients) or 3 (33 patients) vaccine doses. Vaccinated patients consistently and significantly showed improved COVID-19 outcomes compared to unvaccinated patients, with CT-diagnosed pneumonia, hospitalization, O2 therapy, and death reported in 0% versus 48.6%, 2.0% versus 15.2%, 0% versus 14.1%, and 0% versus 7.6%, respectively, of assessable patients (p < 0.05). Vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients showed a significantly shorter time to negativization, with a median (95% confidence interval) time of 12 (10-14) versus 20 (17-23) days, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Vaccination consistently improved all COVID-19 outcomes. No death was recorded among vaccinated patients. Additional research is especially warranted to establish optimal timing and patient selection for administration of the fourth vaccination dose.