Reinfection in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: With the continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic, some COVID-19 patients have become reinfected with the virus. Viral gene sequencing has found that some of these patients were reinfected by the different and others by same strains. This has raised concerns about the effectiveness of immunity after infection and the reliability of vaccines. To this end, we conducted a systematic review to assess the characteristics of patients with reinfection and possible causes. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across eight databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang, VIP and SinoMed from December 1, 2019 to September 1, 2021. The quality of included studies were assessed using JBI critical appraisal tools and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: This study included 50 studies from 20 countries. There were 118 cases of reinfection. Twenty-five patients were reported to have at least one complication. The shortest duration between the first infection and reinfection was 19 days and the longest was 293 days. During the first infection and reinfection, cough (51.6% and 43.9%) and fever (50% and 30.3%) were the most common symptoms respectively. Nine patients recovered, seven patients died, and five patients were hospitalized, but 97 patients' prognosis were unknown. B.1 is the most common variant strain at the first infection. B.1.1.7, B.1.128 and B.1.351 were the most common variant strains at reinfection. Thirty-three patients were infected by different strains and 9 patients were reported as being infected with the same strain. CONCLUSIONS: Our research shows that it is possible for rehabilitated patients to be reinfected by SARS-COV-2. To date, the causes and risk factors of COVID-19 reinfection are not fully understood. For patients with reinfection, the diagnosis and management should be consistent with the treatment of the first infection. The public, including rehabilitated patients, should be fully vaccinated, wear masks in public places, and pay attention to maintaining social distance to avoid reinfection with the virus.

Virtual Care in Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Virtual care in cancer care existed in a limited fashion globally before the COVID-19 pandemic, mostly driven by geographic constraints. The pandemic has required dramatic shifts in health care delivery, including cancer care. We conducted a systematic review of comparative studies evaluating virtual versus in-person care in patients with cancer. Embase, APA PsycInfo, Ovid MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for literature from January 2015 to 6 August 2020. We adhered to PRISMA guidelines and used the modified GRADE approach to evaluate the data. We included 34 full-text publications of 10 randomized controlled trials, 13 non-randomized comparative studies, and 5 ongoing randomized controlled trials. Evidence was divided into studies that provide psychosocial or genetic counselling and those that provide or assess medical and supportive care. The limited data in this review support that in the general field of psychological counselling, virtual or remote counselling can be equivalent to in-person counselling. In the area of genetic counselling, telephone counselling was more convenient and noninferior to usual care for all outcomes (knowledge, decision conflict, cancer distress, perceived stress, genetic counseling satisfaction). There are few data for clinical outcomes and supportive care. Future research should assess the role of virtual care in these areas. Protocol registration: PROSPERO CRD42020202871.

Quality of and Recommendations for Relevant Clinical Practice Guidelines for COVID-19 Management: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.

Background: The morbidity and mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are still increasing. This study aimed to assess the quality of relevant COVID-19 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and to compare the similarities and differences between recommendations. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted using electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) and representative guidelines repositories from December 1, 2019, to August 11, 2020 (updated to April 5, 2021), to obtain eligible CPGs. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to evaluate the quality of CPGs. Four authors extracted relevant information and completed data extraction forms. All data were analyzed using R version 3.6.0 software. Results: In total, 39 CPGs were identified and the quality was not encouragingly high. The median score (interquartile range, IQR) of every domain from AGREE II for evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs) versus (vs.) consensus-based CPG (CB-CPGs) was 81.94% (75.00-84.72) vs. 58.33% (52.78-68.06) in scope and purpose, 59.72% (38.89-75.00) vs. 36.11% (33.33-36.11) in stakeholder involvement, 64.58% (32.29-71.88) vs. 22.92% (16.67-26.56) in rigor of development, 75.00% (52.78-86.81) vs. 52.78% (50.00-63.89) in clarity of presentation, 40.63% (22.40-62.50) vs. 20.83% (13.54-25.00) in applicability, and 58.33% (50.00-100.00) vs. 50.00% (50.00-77.08) in editorial independence, respectively. The methodological quality of EB-CPGs were significantly superior to the CB-CPGs in the majority of domains (P < 0.05). There was no agreement on diagnosis criteria of COVID-19. But a few guidelines show Remdesivir may be beneficial for the patients, hydroxychloroquine +/- azithromycin may not, and there were more consistent suggestions regarding discharge management. For instance, after discharge, isolation management and health status monitoring may be continued. Conclusions: In general, the methodological quality of EB-CPGs is greater than CB-CPGs. However, it is still required to be further improved. Besides, the consistency of COVID-19 recommendations on topics such as diagnosis criteria is different. Of them, hydroxychloroquine +/- azithromycin may be not beneficial to treat patients with COVID-19, but remdesivir may be a favorable risk-benefit in severe COVID-19 infection; isolation management and health status monitoring after discharge may be still necessary. Chemoprophylaxis, including SARS-CoV 2 vaccines and antiviral drugs of COVID-19, still require more trials to confirm this.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of discharged COVID-19 patients retesting positive for RT-PCR.

BACKGROUND: With the increased number of patients discharged after having COVID-19, more and more studies have reported cases whose retesting was positive (RP) during the convalescent period, which brings a new public health challenge to the world. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang and VIP from December 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020. The included studies were assessed using JBI critical appraisal tools and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The RP rate of discharge patients was analyzed by a meta-analysis. We adhered to PRISMA reporting guideline. FINDINGS: We have included 117 studies with 2669 RP participants after discharge. The methodological quality of 66 case reports were low to high, 42 case series and 3 cohort study were moderate to high, 3 case-control studies were moderate and 3 cross-sectional studies were low to moderate. The clinical manifestations of most RP patients were mild or asymptomatic, and CT imaging and laboratory examinations were usually normal. The existing risk factors suggest that more attention should be paid to sever patients, elderly patients, and patients with co-morbidities. The summary RP rate was 12·2% (95% CI 10·6-13·7) with high heterogeneity (I2  = 85%). INTERPRETATION: To date, the causes and risk factors of RP result in discharged patients are not fully understood. High-quality etiological and clinical studies are needed to investigate these issues to further help us to make strategies to control and prevent its occurrence.

Development of rapid advice guideline and standard and continuous updating guideline: experiences and practice.

We published rapid advice guidelines and updated guidelines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) management on February 6, 2020, and September 4, 2020, respectively. These two guidelines vary widely in their developmental background, type of evidence, grade of recommendation and so on. We shared our experience for the development of these two guidelines to help clinical practitioners better understand and implement guidelines and to help guideline developers facilitate communication and discussion for guideline development during the pandemic.

A rapid advice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infected pneumonia (standard version).

In December 2019, a new type viral pneumonia cases occurred in Wuhan, Hubei Province; and then named "2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)" by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 12 January 2020. For it is a never been experienced respiratory disease before and with infection ability widely and quickly, it attracted the world's attention but without treatment and control manual. For the request from frontline clinicians and public health professionals of 2019-nCoV infected pneumonia management, an evidence-based guideline urgently needs to be developed. Therefore, we drafted this guideline according to the rapid advice guidelines methodology and general rules of WHO guideline development; we also added the first-hand management data of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University. This guideline includes the guideline methodology, epidemiological characteristics, disease screening and population prevention, diagnosis, treatment and control (including traditional Chinese Medicine), nosocomial infection prevention and control, and disease nursing of the 2019-nCoV. Moreover, we also provide a whole process of a successful treatment case of the severe 2019-nCoV infected pneumonia and experience and lessons of hospital rescue for 2019-nCoV infections. This rapid advice guideline is suitable for the first frontline doctors and nurses, managers of hospitals and healthcare sections, community residents, public health persons, relevant researchers, and all person who are interested in the 2019-nCoV.