High resolution melting curve analysis for rapid detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants.

Since the emergence of the original Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 strain, several new variants of the virus have emerged. Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and the most recent Omicron variants have been introduced during this pandemic. Several methods including, but not restricted to, allele-specific PCR, ligation with rolling circle amplification and real-time PCR with allele-specific probes are able to detect mutations as low as a single nucleotide polymorphism. High-resolution melting curve analysis is ano-ther technique to assess any mutations in a nucleic acid chain. Confirmed samples with SARS-CoV-2 infection were subjected to variant identification using a de novo-designed HRM assay. In order to select for mutations with the highest effect on Tm of the amplicon, deletion mutations of NSP6 (Del 3675-3677), and S1 (Del 144) were chosen for HRM analysis. HRM analysis for the amplicon of the primer set-1 (NSP6) resulted in Tm differences of -0.39°C, +0.4°C, and -0.6°C between Alpha, Delta, and Omicron variants, respectively, in comparison to the original Wuhan strain. Moreover, HRM analysis of the amplification performed by primer set-2 (S1) led to Tm differences of +0.32°C, -0.26°C, and +0.24°C between Alpha, Delta, and Omicron variants, respectively, in comparison to original Wuhan strain. The test was able to specify each sample to its variant group with more than 90 percent of confidence. The results obtained in this study demonstrate that using a single closed-tube strategy with a HRM-equipped machine, screening new variants of the virus is possible in a fast and reliable way. Keywords: high resolution melting; SARS coronavirus 2; mutation; variant; genotyping.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines against Delta (B.1.617.2) Variant: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies.

The high transmissibility, mortality, and morbidity rate of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta (B.1.617.2) variant have raised concerns regarding vaccine effectiveness (VE). To address this issue, all publications relevant to the effectiveness of vaccines against the Delta variant were searched in the Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and Medline (via PubMed) databases up to 15 October 2021. A total of 15 studies (36 datasets) were included in the meta-analysis. After the first dose, the VE against the Delta variant for each vaccine was 0.567 (95% CI 0.520-0.613) for Pfizer-BioNTech, 0.72 (95% CI 0.589-0.822) for Moderna, 0.44 (95% CI 0.301-0.588) for AstraZeneca, and 0.138 (95% CI 0.076-0.237) for CoronaVac. Meta-analysis of 2,375,957 vaccinated cases showed that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine had the highest VE against the infection after the second dose, at 0.837 (95% CI 0.672-0.928), and third dose, at 0.972 (95% CI 0.96-0.978), as well as the highest VE for the prevention of severe infection or death, at 0.985 (95% CI 0.95-0.99), amongst all COVID-19 vaccines. The short-term effectiveness of vaccines, especially mRNA-based vaccines, for the prevention of the Delta variant infection, hospitalization, severe infection, and death is supported by this study. Limitations include a lack of long-term efficacy data, and under-reporting of COVID-19 infection cases in observational studies, which has the potential to falsely skew VE rates. Overall, this study supports the decisions by public health decision makers to promote the population vaccination rate to control the Delta variant infection and the emergence of further variants.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of pregnant women with COVID-19 and comparison with control patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

In a large-scale study, 128176 non-pregnant patients (228 studies) and 10000 pregnant patients (121 studies) confirmed COVID-19 cases included in this Meta-Analysis. The mean (confidence interval [CI]) of age and gestational age of admission (GA) in pregnant women was 33 (28-37) years old and 36 (34-37) weeks, respectively. Pregnant women show the same manifestations of COVID-19 as non-pregnant adult patients. Fever (pregnant: 75.5%; non-pregnant: 74%) and cough (pregnant: 48.5%; non-pregnant: 53.5%) are the most common symptoms in both groups followed by myalgia (26.5%) and chill (25%) in pregnant and dysgeusia (27%) and fatigue (26.5%) in non-pregnant patients. Pregnant women are less probable to show cough (odds ratio [OR] 0.7; 95% CI 0.67-0.75), fatigue (OR: 0.58; CI: 0.54-0.61), sore throat (OR: 0.66; CI: 0.61-0.7), headache (OR: 0.55; CI: 0.55-0.58) and diarrhea (OR: 0.46; CI: 0.4-0.51) than non-pregnant adult patients. The most common imaging found in pregnant women is ground-glass opacity (57%) and in non-pregnant patients is consolidation (76%). Pregnant women have higher proportion of leukocytosis (27% vs. 14%), thrombocytopenia (18% vs. 12.5%) and have lower proportion of raised C-reactive protein (52% vs. 81%) compared with non-pregnant patients. Leucopenia and lymphopenia are almost the same in both groups. The most common comorbidity in pregnant patients is diabetes (18%) and in non-pregnant patients is hypertension (21%). Case fatality rate (CFR) of non-pregnant hospitalized patients is 6.4% (4.4-8.5), and mortality due to all-cause for pregnant patients is 11.3% (9.6-13.3). Regarding the complications of pregnancy, postpartum hemorrhage (54.5% [7-94]), caesarean delivery (48% [42-54]), preterm labor (25% [4-74]) and preterm birth (21% [12-34]) are in turn the most prevalent complications. Comparing the pregnancy outcomes show that caesarean delivery (OR: 3; CI: 2-5), low birth weight (LBW) (OR: 9; CI: 2.4-30) and preterm birth (OR: 2.5; CI: 1.5-3.5) are more probable in pregnant woman with COVID-19 than pregnant women without COVID-19. The most prevalent neonatal complications are neonatal intensive care unit admission (43% [2-96]), fetal distress (30% [12-58]) and LBW (25% [16-37]). The rate of vertical transmission is 5.3% (1.3-16), and the rate of positive SARS-CoV-2 test for neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 is 8% (4-16). Overall, pregnant patients present with the similar clinical characteristics of COVID-19 when compared with the general population, but they may be more asymptomatic. Higher odds of caesarean delivery, LBW and preterm birth among pregnant patients with COVID-19 suggest a possible association between COVID-19 infection and pregnancy complications. Low risk of vertical transmission is present, and SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in all conception products, particularly placenta and breast milk. Interpretations of these results should be done cautiously due to the heterogeneity between studies; however, we believe our findings can guide the prenatal and postnatal considerations for COVID-19 pregnant patients.

Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

The current study systematically reviewed, summarized and meta-analyzed the clinical features of the vaccines in clinical trials to provide a better estimate of their efficacy, side effects and immunogenicity. All relevant publications were systematically searched and collected from major databases up to 12 March 2021. A total of 25 RCTs (123 datasets), 58,889 cases that received the COVID-19 vaccine and 46,638 controls who received placebo were included in the meta-analysis. In total, mRNA-based and adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccines had 94.6% (95% CI 0.936-0.954) and 80.2% (95% CI 0.56-0.93) efficacy in phase II/III RCTs, respectively. Efficacy of the adenovirus-vectored vaccine after the first (97.6%; 95% CI 0.939-0.997) and second (98.2%; 95% CI 0.980-0.984) doses was the highest against receptor-binding domain (RBD) antigen after 3 weeks of injections. The mRNA-based vaccines had the highest level of side effects reported except for diarrhea and arthralgia. Aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines had the lowest systemic and local side effects between vaccines' adjuvant or without adjuvant, except for injection site redness. The adenovirus-vectored and mRNA-based vaccines for COVID-19 showed the highest efficacy after first and second doses, respectively. The mRNA-based vaccines had higher side effects. Remarkably few experienced extreme adverse effects and all stimulated robust immune responses.

Comparison of influenza type A and B with COVID-19: A global systematic review and meta-analysis on clinical, laboratory and radiographic findings.

We compared clinical symptoms, laboratory findings, radiographic signs and outcomes of COVID-19 and influenza to identify unique features. Depending on the heterogeneity test, we used either random or fixed-effect models to analyse the appropriateness of the pooled results. Overall, 540 articles included in this study; 75,164 cases of COVID-19 (157 studies), 113,818 influenza type A (251 studies) and 9266 influenza type B patients (47 studies) were included. Runny nose, dyspnoea, sore throat and rhinorrhoea were less frequent symptoms in COVID-19 cases (14%, 15%, 11.5% and 9.5%, respectively) in comparison to influenza type A (70%, 45.5%, 49% and 44.5%, respectively) and type B (74%, 33%, 38% and 49%, respectively). Most of the patients with COVID-19 had abnormal chest radiology (84%, p < 0.001) in comparison to influenza type A (57%, p < 0.001) and B (33%, p < 0.001). The incubation period in COVID-19 (6.4 days estimated) was longer than influenza type A (3.4 days). Likewise, the duration of hospitalization in COVID-19 patients (14 days) was longer than influenza type A (6.5 days) and influenza type B (6.7 days). Case fatality rate of hospitalized patients in COVID-19 (6.5%, p < 0.001), influenza type A (6%, p < 0.001) and influenza type B was 3%(p < 0.001). The results showed that COVID-19 and influenza had many differences in clinical manifestations and radiographic findings. Due to the lack of effective medication or vaccine for COVID-19, timely detection of this viral infection and distinguishing from influenza are very important.

Clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, radiographic signs and outcomes of 61,742 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: In the current time where we face a COVID-19 pandemic, there is no vaccine or effective treatment at this time. Therefore, the prevention of COVID-19 and the rapid diagnosis of infected patients is crucial. METHOD: We searched all relevant literature published up to February 28, 2020. We used Random-effect models to analyze the appropriateness of the pooled results. RESULT: Eighty studies were included in the meta-analysis, including 61,742 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. 62.5% (95% CI 54.5-79, p < 0.001) of patients had a history of recent travel endemic area or contact with them. The most common symptoms among COVID-19 infected patients were fever 87% (95% CI 73-93, p < 0.001), and cough 68% (95% CI 55.5-74, p < 0.001)), respectively. The laboratory analysis showed that thrombocytosis was present in 61% (95% CI 41-78, p < 0.001) CRP was elevated in 79% (95% CI 65-91, p < 0.001), and lymphopenia in 57.5% (95% CI 42-79, p < 0.001). The most common radiographic signs were bilateral involvement in 81% (95% CI 62.5-87, p < 0.001), consolidation in 73.5% (95% CI 50.5-91, p < 0.001), and ground-glass opacity 73.5% (95% CI 40-90, p < 0.001) of patients. Case fatality rate (CFR) in <15 years old was 0.6%, in >50 years old was 39.5%, and in all range group was 6%. CONCLUSIONS: Fever and cough are the most common symptoms of COVID-19 infection in the literature published to date. Thombocytosis, lymphopenia, and increased CRP were common lab findings although most patients included in the overall analysis did not have laboratory values reported. Among Chinese patients with COVID-19, rates of hospitalization, critical condition, and hospitalization were high in this study, but these findings may be biased by reporting only confirmed cases.

Comparison of confirmed COVID-19 with SARS and MERS cases - Clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, radiographic signs and outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Within this large-scale study, we compared clinical symptoms, laboratory findings, radiographic signs, and outcomes of COVID-19, SARS, and MERS to find unique features. METHOD: We searched all relevant literature published up to February 28, 2020. Depending on the heterogeneity test, we used either random or fixed-effect models to analyze the appropriateness of the pooled results. Study has been registered in the PROSPERO database (ID 176106). RESULT: Overall 114 articles included in this study; 52 251 COVID-19 confirmed patients (20 studies), 10 037 SARS (51 studies), and 8139 MERS patients (43 studies) were included. The most common symptom was fever; COVID-19 (85.6%, P < .001), SARS (96%, P < .001), and MERS (74%, P < .001), respectively. Analysis showed that 84% of Covid-19 patients, 86% of SARS patients, and 74.7% of MERS patients had an abnormal chest X-ray. The mortality rate in COVID-19 (5.6%, P < .001) was lower than SARS (13%, P < .001) and MERS (35%, P < .001) between all confirmed patients. CONCLUSIONS: At the time of submission, the mortality rate in COVID-19 confirmed cases is lower than in SARS- and MERS-infected patients. Clinical outcomes and findings would be biased by reporting only confirmed cases, and this should be considered when interpreting the data.