Search

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reinfection has brought new challenges to the global prevention and control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic; however, current studies suggest that there is still great uncertainty about the risk of severe COVID-19 and poor outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. Random-effects inverse-variance models were used to evaluate the pooled prevalence (PP) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) of severity, outcomes and symptoms of reinfection. Random-effects were used to estimate the pooled odds ratios (OR) and its 95%CI of severity and outcomes between reinfections and primary infections. Nineteen studies involving a total of 34,375 cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection and 5,264,720 cases of SARS-CoV-2 primary infection were included in this meta-analysis. Among those SARS-CoV-2 reinfection cases, 41.77% (95%CI, 19.23-64.31%) were asymptomatic, and 51.83% (95%CI, 23.90-79.76%) were symptomatic, only 0.58% (95%CI, 0.031-1.14%) manifested as severe illness, and 0.04% (95%CI, 0.009-0.078%) manifested as critical illness. The PPs for SARS-CoV-2 reinfection-related hospitalization, admission to ICU, and death were, respectively, 15.48% (95%CI, 11.98-18.97%), 3.58% (95%CI, 0.39-6.77%), 2.96% (95%CI, 1.25-4.67%). Compared with SARS-CoV-2 primary infection cases, reinfection cases were more likely to present with mild illness (OR = 7.01, 95%CI, 5.83-8.44), and the risk of severe illness was reduced by 86% (OR = 0.14, 95%CI, 0.11-0.16). Primary infection provided some protection against reinfection and reduces the risk of symptomatic infection and severe illness. Reinfection did not contribute to extra risk of hospitalization, ICU, or death. It is suggested to scientifically understand the risk of reinfection of SARS-CoV-2, strengthen public health education, maintain healthy habits, and reduce the risk of reinfection.

Little is known about the long-term consequences of asymptomatic infection caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We aimed to review the data available to explore the long-term consequences of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in the real world. We searched observational cohort studies that described the long-term health effects of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. Random-effects inverse-variance models were used to evaluate the pooled prevalence (PP) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) of long-term symptoms. Random effects were used to estimate the pooled odds ratios (OR) and its 95%CI of different long-term symptoms between symptomatic and asymptomatic infections. Five studies involving a total of 1643 cases, including 597 cases of asymptomatic and 1043 cases of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection were included in this meta-analysis. The PPs of long-term consequences after asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections were 17.13% (95%CI, 7.55−26.71%) for at least one symptom, 15.09% (95%CI, 5.46−24.73%) for loss of taste, 14.14% (95%CI, −1.32−29.61%) for loss of smell, and 9.33% (95%CI, 3.07−15.60) for fatigue. Compared with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, asymptomatic infection was associated with a significantly lower risk of developing COVID-19-related sequelae (p < 0.05), with 80% lower risk of developing at least one symptom (OR = 0.20, 95%CI, 0.09−0.45), 81% lower risk of fatigue (OR = 0.19, 95%CI, 0.08−0.49), 90% lower risk of loss of taste/smell (OR = 0.10, 95%CI, 0.02−0.58). Our results suggested that there were long-term effects of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, such as loss of taste or smell, fatigue, cough and so on. However, the risk of developing long-term symptoms in asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infected persons was significantly lower than those in symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection cases.

Although many studies of long COVID-19 were reported, there was a lack of systematic research which assessed the differences of long COVID-19 in regard to what unique SARS-CoV-2 strains caused it. As such, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the characteristics of long COVID-19 that is caused by different SARS-CoV-2 strains. We systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and ScienceDirect databases in order to find cohort studies of long COVID-19 as defined by the WHO (Geneva, Switzerland). The main outcomes were in determining the percentages of long COVID-19 among patients who were infected with different SARS-CoV-2 strains. Further, this study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022339964). A total of 51 studies with 33,573 patients was included, of which three studies possessed the Alpha and Delta variants, and five studies possessed the Omicron variant. The highest pooled estimate of long COVID-19 was found in the CT abnormalities (60.5%; 95% CI: 40.4%, 80.6%) for the wild-type strain; fatigue (66.1%; 95% CI: 42.2%, 89.9%) for the Alpha variant; and ≥1 general symptoms (28.4%; 95% CI: 7.9%, 49.0%) for the Omicron variant. The pooled estimates of ≥1 general symptoms (65.8%; 95% CI: 47.7%, 83.9%) and fatigue were the highest symptoms found among patients infected with the Alpha variant, followed by the wild-type strain, and then the Omicron variant. The pooled estimate of myalgia was highest among patients infected with the Omicron variant (11.7%; 95%: 8.3%, 15.1%), compared with those infected with the wild-type strain (9.4%; 95%: 6.3%, 12.5%). The pooled estimate of sleep difficulty was lowest among the patients infected with the Delta variant (2.5%; 95%: 0.2%, 4.9%) when compared with those infected with the wild-type strain (24.5%; 95%: 17.5%, 31.5%) and the Omicron variant (18.7%; 95%: 1.0%, 36.5%). The findings of this study suggest that there is no significant difference between long COVID-19 that has been caused by different strains, except in certain general symptoms (i.e., in the Alpha or Omicron variant) and in sleep difficulty (i.e., the wild-type strain). In the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its emerging variants, directing more attention to long COVID-19 that is caused by unique strains, as well as implementing targeted intervention measures to address it are vital.

The aim of this study is to review the currently available data, and to explore the association of infection with different severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants during pregnancy with maternal and perinatal outcomes in the real world. Observational cohort studies were analyzed that described the maternal and perinatal outcomes of infection with different SARS-CoV-2 variants during pregnancy. Random-effects inverse-variance models were used to evaluate the pooled prevalence (PP) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for maternal and perinatal outcomes. Random effects were used to estimate the pooled odds ratios (OR) and their 95% CI for different outcomes between Delta and pre-Delta periods, and between Omicron and Delta periods. Eighteen studies, involving a total of 133,058 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy (99,567 cases of SARS-CoV-2 wild type or pre-variant infection and 33,494 cases of SARS-CoV-2 variant infections), were included in this meta-analysis. Among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infections, the PPs for required respiratory support, severe or critical illness, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, maternal death, and preterm birth <37 weeks were, respectively, 27.24% (95%CI, 20.51−33.97%), 24.96% (95%CI, 15.96−33.96%), 11.31% (95%CI, 4.00−18.61%), 4.20% (95%CI, 1.43−6.97%), and 33.85% (95%CI, 21.54−46.17%) in the Delta period, which were higher than those in the pre-Delta period, while the corresponding PPs were, respectively, 10.74% (95%CI, 6.05−15.46%), 11.99% (95%CI, 6.23−17.74%), 4.17% (95%CI, 1.53−6.80%), 0.63% (95%CI, 0.05−1.20%), and 18.58% (95%CI, 9.52−27.65%). The PPs for required respiratory support, severe or critical illness, and ICU admission were, respectively, 2.63% (95%CI, 0.98−4.28%), 1.11% (95%CI, 0.29−1.94%), and 1.83% (95%CI, 0.85−2.81%) in the Omicron period, which were lower than those in the pre-Delta and Delta periods. These results suggest that Omicron infections are associated with less severe maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes, though maternal ICU admission, the need for respiratory support, and preterm birth did also occur with Omicron infections. Since Omicron is currently the predominant strain globally, and has the highest rates of transmission, it is still important to remain vigilant in protecting the vulnerable populations of mothers and infants. In particular, obstetricians and gynecologists should not ignore the adverse risks of maternal ICU admission, respiratory support, and preterm births in pregnant patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections, in order to protect the health of mothers and infants.

As vaccine resources were distributed unevenly worldwide, sometimes there might have been shortages or delays in vaccine supply; therefore, considering the use of heterogeneous booster doses for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) might be an alternative strategy. Therefore, we aimed to review the data available to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety of heterologous booster doses with homologous booster doses for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines. We searched relevant studies up to 27 April 2022. Random-effects inverse variance models were used to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) of COVID-19 outcomes and odds ratio (OR) and its CI of safety events. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale and Cochrane Collaboration's tool were used to assess the quality of the included cohort studies. A total of 23 studies involving 1,726,506 inoculation cases of homologous booster dose and 5,343,580 inoculation cases of heterologous booster dose was included. The VE of heterologous booster for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection (VE heterologous = 96.10%, VE homologous = 84.00%), symptomatic COVID-19 (VE heterologous = 56.80%, VE homologous = 17.30%), and COVID-19-related hospital admissions (VE heterologous = 97.40%, VE homologous = 93.20%) was higher than homologous booster. Compared with homologous booster group, there was a higher risk of fever (OR = 1.930, 95% CI, 1.199-3.107), myalgia (OR = 1.825, 95% CI, 1.079-3.089), and malaise or fatigue (OR = 1.745, 95% CI, 1.047-2.906) within 7 days after boosting, and a higher risk of malaise or fatigue (OR = 4.140, 95% CI, 1.729-9.916) within 28 days after boosting in heterologous booster group. Compared with homologous booster group, geometric mean neutralizing titers (GMTs) of neutralizing antibody for different SARS-CoV-2 variants and response rate of antibody and gama interferon were higher in heterologous booster group. Our findings suggested that both homologous and heterologous COVID-19 booster doses had great effectiveness, immunogenicity, and acceptable safety, and a heterologous booster dose was more effective, which would help make appropriate public health decisions and reduce public hesitancy in vaccination.

We aimed to review the data available to evaluate the long-term consequences of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at 6 months and above. We searched relevant observational cohort studies up to 9 February 2022 in Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science. Random-effects inverse-variance models were used to evaluate the Pooled Prevalence (PP) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) of long-term consequences. The Newcastle−Ottawa quality assessment scale was used to assess the quality of the included cohort studies. A total of 40 studies involving 10,945 cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection were included. Of the patients, 63.87% had at least one consequence at the 6 month follow-up, which decreased to 58.89% at 12 months. The most common symptoms were fatigue or muscle weakness (PP 6−12 m = 54.21%, PP ≥ 12 m = 34.22%) and mild dyspnea (Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale, mMRC = 0, PP 6−12 m = 74.60%, PP ≥ 12 m = 80.64%). Abnormal computerized tomography (CT; PP 6−12 m = 55.68%, PP ≥ 12 m = 43.76%) and lung diffuse function impairment, i.e., a carbon monoxide diffusing capacity (DLCO) of < 80% were common (PP 6−12 m = 49.10%, PP ≥ 12 m = 31.80%). Anxiety and depression (PP 6−12 m = 33.49%, PP ≥ 12 m = 35.40%) and pain or discomfort (PP 6−12 m = 33.26%, PP ≥ 12 m = 35.31%) were the most common problems that affected patients’ quality of life. Our findings suggest a significant long-term impact on health and quality of life due to COVID-19, and as waves of ASRS-CoV-2 infections emerge, the long-term effects of COVID-19 will not only increase the difficulty of care for COVID-19 survivors and the setting of public health policy but also might lead to another public health crisis following the current pandemic, which would also increase the global long-term burden of disease.

We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines for pregnant women in real-world studies. We searched for observational studies about the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines among vaccinated pregnant women from inception to 6 November 2021. A total of 6 studies were included. We found that vaccination prevented pregnant women from SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR = 0.50, 95% CI, 0.35–0.79) and COVID-19-related hospitalization (OR = 0.50, 95% CI, 0.31–0.82). Messenger-RNA vaccines could reduce the risk of infection in pregnant women (OR = 0.13, 95% CI, 0.03–0.57). No adverse events of COVID-19 vaccination were found on pregnant, fetal, or neonatal outcomes. Our analysis confirmed the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women. Policy makers should formulate targeted strategies to improve vaccine coverage in pregnant women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]