Viral reactivations and co-infections in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Viral reactivations and co-infections have been reported among COVID-19 patients. However, studies on the clinical outcomes of different viral reactivations and co-infections are currently in limit. Thus, the primary purpose of this review is to perform an overarching investigation on the cases of latent virus reactivation and co-infection in COVID-19 patients to build collective evidence contributing to improving patient health. The aim of the study was to conduct a literature review to compare the patient characteristics and outcomes of reactivations and co-infections of different viruses. METHODS: Our population of interest included confirmed COVID-19 patients who were diagnosed with a viral infection either concurrently or following their COVID-19 diagnosis. We extracted the relevant literature through a systematic search using the key terms in the online databases including the EMBASE, MEDLINE, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), from inception onwards up to June 2022. The authors independently extracted data from eligible studies and assessed the risk of bias using the Consensus-based Clinical Case Reporting (CARE) guidelines and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Main patient characteristics, frequency of each manifestation, and diagnostic criteria used in studies were summarized in tables. RESULTS: In total, 53 articles were included in this review. We identified 40 reactivation studies, 8 coinfection studies, and 5 studies where concomitant infection in COVID-19 patients was not distinguished as either reactivation or coinfection. Data were extracted for 12 viruses including IAV, IBV, EBV, CMV, VZV, HHV-1, HHV-2, HHV-6, HHV-7, HHV-8, HBV, and Parvovirus B19. EBV, HHV-1, and CMV were most frequently observed within the reactivation cohort, whereas IAV and EBV within the coinfection cohort. In both reactivation and coinfection groups, patients reported cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and immunosuppression as comorbidities, acute kidney injury as complication, and lymphopenia and elevated D-dimer and CRP levels from blood tests. Common pharmaceutical interventions in two groups included steroids and antivirals. CONCLUSION: Overall, these findings expand our knowledge on the characteristics of COVID-19 patients with viral reactivations and co-infections. Our experience with current review indicates a need for further investigations on virus reactivation and coinfection among COVID-19 patients.

Persistent SARS-CoV-2 Infection, EBV, HHV-6 and Other Factors May Contribute to Inflammation and Autoimmunity in Long COVID.

A novel syndrome called long-haul COVID or long COVID is increasingly recognized in a significant percentage of individuals within a few months after infection with SARS-CoV-2. This disorder is characterized by a wide range of persisting, returning or even new but related symptoms that involve different tissues and organs, including respiratory, cardiac, vascular, gastrointestinal, musculo-skeletal, neurological, endocrine and systemic. Some overlapping symptomatologies exist between long COVID and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). Very much like with long ME/CFS, infections with herpes family viruses, immune dysregulation, and the persistence of inflammation have been reported as the most common pattern for the development of long COVID. This review describes several factors and determinants of long COVID that have been proposed, elaborating mainly on viral persistence, reactivation of latent viruses such as Epstein-Barr virus and human herpesvirus 6 which are also associated with the pathology of ME/CFS, viral superantigen activation of the immune system, disturbance in the gut microbiome, and multiple tissue damage and autoimmunity. Based on these factors, we propose diagnostic strategies such as the measurement of IgG and IgM antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, EBV, HHV-6, viral superantigens, gut microbiota, and biomarkers of autoimmunity to better understand and manage this multi-factorial disorder that continues to affect millions of people in the world.

Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms (DRESS): Focus on the Pathophysiological and Diagnostic Role of Viruses.

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a heterogeneous, multiorgan and potentially life-threatening drug-hypersensitivity reaction (DHR) that occurs several days or weeks after drug initiation or discontinuation. DHRs constitute an emerging issue for public health, due to population aging, growing multi-organ morbidity, and subsequent enhanced drug prescriptions. DRESS has more consistently been associated with anticonvulsants, allopurinol and antibiotics, such as sulphonamides and vancomycin, although new drugs are increasingly reported as culprit agents. Reactivation of latent infectious agents such as viruses (especially Herpesviridae) plays a key role in prompting and sustaining aberrant T-cell and eosinophil responses to drugs and pathogens, ultimately causing organ damage. However, the boundaries of the impact of viral agents in the pathophysiology of DRESS are still ill-defined. Along with growing awareness of the multifaceted aspects of immune perturbation caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during the ongoing SARS-CoV-2-related disease (COVID-19) pandemic, novel interest has been sparked towards DRESS and the potential interactions among antiviral and anti-drug inflammatory responses. In this review, we summarised the most recent evidence on pathophysiological mechanisms, diagnostic approaches, and clinical management of DRESS with the aim of increasing awareness on this syndrome and possibly suggesting clues for future research in this field.

Coronavirus disease 2019 and pityriasis rosea: A review of the immunological connection.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is characterized by the activation of a cytokine storm derived from an excess release of cytokine (interleukin [IL]-6, interferon [IFN] I, C-X-C motif chemokine ligand [CXCL]10, tumor necrosis factor [TNF]-α, macrophage inflammatory protein [MIP]1) due to an uncontrolled immune activation. There has been a fivefold increase in the number of cases of pityriasis rosea during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Using the keywords "pityriasis" and "COVID-19", we carried out a PubMed search, including all articles in the English language published until November 2021. We aimed to investigate the possible connection between SARS-CoV-2 and pityriasis rosea (PR). Pityriasis could be considered an immunological disease due to the involvement of cytokines and chemokines. Our analysis yielded 65 articles of which 53 were not considered; the others (n = 12) concerning the association between PR and COVID-19 were included in our study. We suggest two mechanisms underlying the involvement of the skin in viral infections: (i) viruses directly affecting the skin and/or inducing host immune response thus causing cutaneous manifestations; and (ii) viruses as a possible inducer of the reactivation of another virus. The first mechanism is probably related to a release of pro-inflammatory cytokine and infection-related biomarkers; in the second, several pathways could be involved in the reactivation of other latent viruses (human herpesviruses 6 and 7), such as a cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction, the Janus kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription signaling pathway, and the IL-17 signaling pathway. We thus believe that a cytokine storm could be directly or indirectly responsible for a cutaneous manifestation. More investigations are needed to find specific pathways involved and thus confirm our speculations.

Case Report: Cytomegalovirus Reactivation and Pericarditis Following ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccination Against SARS-CoV-2.

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is ongoing and new variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are emerging, there is an urgent need for vaccines to protect individuals at high risk for complications and to potentially control disease outbreaks by herd immunity. Surveillance of rare safety issues related to these vaccines is progressing, since more granular data emerge about adverse events of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines during post-marketing surveillance. Varicella zoster virus (VZV), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation has already been reported in COVID-19 patients. In addition, adverse events after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination have also been in the context of varicella zoster virus (VZV) reactivation and directly associated with the mRNA vaccine. We present the first case of CMV reactivation and pericarditis in temporal association with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, particularly adenovirus-based DNA vector vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against SARS-CoV-2. After initiation of antiviral therapy with oral valganciclovir, CMV viremia disappeared and clinical symptoms rapidly improved. Since huge vaccination programs are ongoing worldwide, post-marketing surveillance systems must be in place to assess vaccine safety that is important for the detection of any events. In the context of the hundreds of millions of individuals to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, a potential causal association with CMV reactivation may result in a considerable number of cases with potentially severe complications.

Efficacy and safety of antiviral therapy in critically ill patients with mechanical ventilation: a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: Viral reactivation is frequently detected in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation and is associated with worse outcomes. However, the efficacy and safety of antiviral therapy in these patients remain unknown. This review aims to assess the effects of antiviral therapy on mortality, viral reactivation, and adverse events in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. METHODS: Data sources were Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and reference lists. The study included randomized controlled trials that compared antiviral therapy with placebo, standard care, or no treatment. Participants were critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. Intervention was antiviral therapy. Assessment of risk of bias used the Cochrane risk of bias tool. For methods of data synthesis, risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model for meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. RESULTS: Nine trials with a broad spectrum of critically ill patients were included. No association was found between antiviral therapy and all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up (nine trials, 1790 patients, RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.79-1.11, I2 3%). Trial sequential analysis showed that the cumulative Z curve crossed the futility boundary establishing sufficient evidence. No association was also found between antiviral therapy and 28-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, 60-day mortality, or 90-day mortality. However, antiviral therapy was associated with a reduction in viral reactivation (five trials, 644 patients, RR 0.23, 95%CI 0.14-0.37, I2 0%). Trial sequential analysis showed that the cumulative Z curve crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit establishing sufficient evidence. Antiviral therapy was not associated with an increased risk of renal insufficiency (eight trials, 1574 patients, RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.73-1.05, I2 0%). CONCLUSIONS: No association between antiviral therapy and mortality was found, but antiviral therapy reduced viral reactivation without increasing the risk of renal insufficiency in critically ill patients with mechanical ventilation.

COVID-19 outcomes in persons with multiple sclerosis treated with rituximab.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of COVID-19 in PwMS (persons with Multiple Sclerosis) on immunosuppressive therapies, particularly B-cell depletors, can be unpredictable. There has been a concern for postponing or avoiding use of Rituximab (RTX) during the COVID-19 pandemic. We report the course and outcomes of COVID-19 in PwMS receiving RTX. METHODS: PwMS receiving RTX who contracted COVID-19 were closely monitored by tele-consultation and/or evaluated during hospital visits. Those requiring hospitalization for oxygen therapy or admission to ICU or expiring due to COVID-19 were considered to have severe disease. Those without desaturation and manageable at home were considered to have mild disease. Disease course and outcomes were noted. RESULTS: Twelve out of 62 (19.4%) PwMS on RTX therapy developed COVID-19. Four (age 35-49 years; mean 43.5) had severe COVID; three of whom had Secondary Progressive MS (SPMS). One PwMS expired. Two had prolonged fever lasting >1 month. One demonstrated features of SARS-CoV-2 reactivation. Interval from last RTX infusion (average dose 750 mg) to COVID-19 onset ranged 1-4 (mean 3.7) months. Eight PwMS had mild COVID-19 (age 26-54 years; mean 37.7); six had RRMS and two SPMS. RTX dose was lower (average dose 625 mg) and infusion to COVID-19 onset duration was longer, ranging 4-20 (mean 9.5) months. Four patients, two each from mild and severe COVID-19 groups had neurological deterioration, but none had true relapses. CONCLUSION: RTX treated PwMS may have unpredictable disease outcomes if they contract COVID-19, but may be at risk of severe disease and persistent infection. In our series higher age, SPMS, shorter interval from RTX infusion to COVID-19 onset and higher dose of RTX were noted amongst those developing severe disease. RTX should be use cautiously during the COVID-19 pandemic and if unavoidable, less frequent and lower doses should be considered. Patients receiving RTX must be counselled to follow strict COVID-19 preventive measures.

Herpesvirus reactivation during severe COVID-19 and high rate of immune defect.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed herpesvirus reactivation in severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Retrospective study including consecutive patients admitted to an onco-hematology intensive care unit (ICU) for severe COVID-19. Replication of EBV, CMV, and HSV was evaluated. Competing risk analyses were used to assess the cumulative risk of viral reactivation, and time-dependent Cox and Fine and Gray models to assess risk factors for viral reactivation. RESULTS: Among 100 patients, 38 were immunocompromised. Sixty-three patients presented viral reactivation (12% for HSV, 58% EBV and 19% CMV). Symptomatic patients received treatment. Overall cumulative incidence of viral reactivation was 56.1% [55.9-56.4] at 10 days. After adjustment, a preexisting hematological malignancy (sHR [95%CI]=0.31 [0.11-0.85]) and solid organ transplantation (sHR [95% CI]=2.09 [1.13-3.87]) remained independently associated with viral reactivation. Viral reactivation (P=0.34) was not associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of herpesvirus reactivation in patients admitted to the ICU for severe COVID-19 was high, but rarely required antiviral treatment.