Stool Xpert MTB/RIF as a possible diagnostic alternative to sputum in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Worldwide, COVID-19 pandemic lead to a large fall in the number of newly reported TB cases. In sub-Saharan Africa, microbiological diagnosis of TB is generally based on smear microscopy and Xpert MTB/RIF on sputum samples, but good quality sputum samples are often difficult to obtain, leading clinicians to rely on more invasive procedures for diagnosis. Aim of this study was to investigate pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert MTB/RIF on stool samples compared to respiratory microbiological reference standards in African countries. Methods: Four investigators independently searched PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science until 12th October 2022, then screened titles and abstracts of all potentially eligible articles. The authors applied the eligibility criteria, considered the full texts. All the studies reported the data regarding true positive (TP), true negative (TN), false positive (FP) and false negative (FN). Risk of bias and applicability concerns were assessed with the Quadas-2 tool. Results: overall, among 130 papers initially screened, we evaluated 47 works, finally including 13 papers for a total of 2,352 participants, mainly children. The mean percentage of females was 49.6%, whilst the mean percentage of patients reporting HIV was 27.7%. Pooled sensitivity for Xpert MTB/RIF assay for detecting pulmonary tuberculosis was 68.2% (95%CI: 61.1-74.7%) even if characterized by a high heterogeneity (I2=53.7%). Specificity was almost 100% (99%, 95%CI: 97-100%; I2 = 45.7%). When divided for reference standard, in the six studies using sputum and nasogastric aspirate the accuracy was optimal (AUC = 0.99, SE = 0.02), whilst in the studies using only sputum for tuberculosis detection the AUC was 0.85 (with a SE = 0.16). The most common source of bias was exclusion of enrolled patients in the analysis. Conclusions: Our study confirms that, in Africa, stool Xpert MTB/RIF may be a useful rule-in test for children above and below 5 years of age under evaluation for pulmonary tuberculosis. Sensitivity increased substantially when using both sputum and nasogastric aspirate as reference samples.

Incidence of long COVID-19 in people with previous SARS-Cov2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 120,970 patients.

The long-term consequences of the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) are likely to be frequent but results hitherto are inconclusive. Therefore, we aimed to define the incidence of long-term COVID signs and symptoms as defined by the World Health Organization, using a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. A systematic search in several databases was carried out up to 12 January 2022 for observational studies reporting the cumulative incidence of long COVID signs and symptoms divided according to body systems affected. Data are reported as incidence and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Several sensitivity and meta-regression analyses were performed. Among 11,162 papers initially screened, 196 were included, consisting of 120,970 participants (mean age: 52.3 years; 48.8% females) who were followed-up for a median of six months. The incidence of any long COVID symptomatology was 56.9% (95% CI 52.2-61.6). General long COVID signs and symptoms were the most frequent (incidence of 31%) and digestive issues the least frequent (7.7%). The presence of any neurological, general and cardiovascular long COVID symptomatology was most frequent in females. Higher mean age was associated with higher incidence of psychiatric, respiratory, general, digestive and skin conditions. The incidence of long COVID symptomatology was different according to continent and follow-up length. Long COVID is a common condition in patients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, regardless of the severity of the acute illness, indicating the need for more cohort studies on this topic.

Interventions for Improving Long COVID-19 Symptomatology: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Although the understanding of several aspects of long COVID-19 syndrome is increasing, there is limited literature regarding the treatment of these signs and symptoms. The aim of our systematic review was to understand which therapies have proved effective against the symptoms of long COVID-19. METHODS: A systematic search for randomized controlled or clinical trials in several databases was conducted through 15 May 2022. Specific inclusion criteria included: (1) intervention studies, either randomized controlled (RCTs) or clinical trials; (2) diagnosis of long COVID-19, according to the World Health Organization criteria; (3) presence of long COVID-19 for at least 12 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: We initially found 1638 articles to screen. After removing 1602 works based on their title/abstract, we considered 35 full texts, and among them, two intervention studies were finally included. The first RCT focused on the greater improvement of treatment combining olfactory rehabilitation with oral supplementation with Palmitoylethanolamide and Luteolin in patients with olfactory dysfunction after COVID-19. The second study evaluated the positive impact of aromatherapy vs. standard care in adult females affected by fatigue. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review found only two intervention studies focused on patients affected by long COVID-19. More intervention studies are needed to investigate potentially positive interventions for long COVID-19 symptoms.