Prevalence of hearing loss in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: 'Hearing loss' has been reported as a clinical atypical symptom in some COVID-19 patients. We searched and collated the existing literature for a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of hearing loss during the COVID-19 epidemic. METHODS: An exhaustive search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and other sources from the inception of the database until 31st December 2022. The Search terms were set to: 'COVID-19', 'SARS-CoV-2', '2019-nCoV', 'hearing impairment', 'hearing loss', 'auditory dysfunction'. The literature data meeting the inclusion criteria were extracted and analyzed. Prevalence was pooled from individual studies using a randomized effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies were included in the final analysis, involving 14281 patients with COVID-19 infection, of which 482 patients had varying degrees of hearing loss. Our final meta-analysis demonstrated that the prevalence of hearing loss in COVID-19-positive patients was 8.2% (95%CI 5.0-12.1). Subgroup analysis of age showed that the prevalence of middle-aged and older patients aged 50-60 and over 60 years was 20.6% and 14.8%, respectively, which was significantly higher than that of patients aged 30-40 (4.9%) and 40-50 years (6.0%). CONCLUSION: Hearing loss is one of the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 infection, compared with other diseases, it is less likely to attract the attention of clinical experts or researchers. Raising awareness of this disease can not only enable early diagnosis and treatment of hearing loss, and improve the quality of life of patients, but also enhance our vigilance against virus transmission, which has important clinical and practical significance.

COVID-19 in gastroenterology and hepatology: Lessons learned and questions to be answered.

BACKGROUND: Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presents primarily as a lower respiratory tract infection, increasing data suggests multiorgan, including the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and liver, involvement in patients who are infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). AIM: To provide a comprehensive overview of COVID-19 in gastroenterology and hepatology. METHODS: Relevant studies on COVID-19 related to the study aim were undertaken through a literature search to synthesize the extracted data. RESULTS: We found that digestive symptoms and liver injury are not uncommon in patients with COVID-19 and varies in different individuals. The most common GI symptoms reported are diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal discomfort. Other atypical GI symptoms, such as loss of smell and taste and GI bleeding, have also been reported along with the evolvement of COVID-19. Liver chemistry abnormalities mainly include elevation of aspartate transferase, alanine transferase, and total bilirubin. It is postulated to be related to the binding of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus to the angiotensin converting enzyme-2 receptor located on several different human cells. CONCLUSION: Standardized criteria should be established for diagnosis and grading of the severity of GI symptoms in COVID-19 patients. Gastroenterology and hepatology in special populations, such as children and elderly, should be the focus of further research. Future long-term data regarding GI symptoms should not be overlooked.

Cesarean Section or Vaginal Delivery to Prevent Possible Vertical Transmission From a Pregnant Mother Confirmed With COVID-19 to a Neonate: A Systematic Review.

Background: The impact of delivery mode on the infection rates of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the newborn remains unknown. We aimed to summarize the existing literature on COVID-19 infection during pregnancy to evaluate which mode of delivery is better for preventing possible vertical transmission from a pregnant mother confirmed with COVID-19 to a neonate. Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature database (CBM) from 31 December 2019 to 18 June 2020. We applied no language restrictions. We screened abstracts for relevance, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in duplicate. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. The primary outcome was severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test positivity in neonates born to mothers with confirmed COVID-19 following different delivery modes. Secondary outcomes were neonatal deaths and maternal deaths. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020194049. Results: Sixty-eight observational studies meeting inclusion criteria were included in the current study, with no randomized controlled trials. In total, information on the mode of delivery, detailed neonatal outcomes, and SARS-CoV-2 status were available for 1,019 pregnant women and 1,035 neonates. Six hundred and eighteen (59.71%) neonates were born through cesarean section and 417(40.29%) through vaginal delivery. Probable congenital SARS-CoV-2 infections were reported in 34/1,035 (3.29%) neonates. Of babies born vaginally, 9/417 (2.16%) were tested positive compared with 25/618 (4.05%) born by cesarean. Of babies born vaginally, 0/417 (0.00%) neonatal deaths were reported compared with 6/618 (0.97%) born by cesarean. Of women who delivered vaginally, 1/416 (0.24%) maternal deaths were reported compared with 11/603 (1.82%) delivered by cesarean. Two women died before delivery. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses showed similar findings. Conclusions: The rate of neonatal COVID-19 infection, neonatal deaths, and maternal deaths are no greater when the mother gave birth through vaginal delivery. Based on the evidence available, there is no sufficient evidence supporting that the cesarean section is better than vaginal delivery in preventing possible vertical transmission from a pregnant mother confirmed with COVID-19 to a neonate. The mode of birth should be individualized and based on disease severity and obstetric indications. Additional good-quality studies with comprehensive serial tests from multiple specimens are urgently needed. Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42020194049.